The political life of Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), especially after Rajavi’s retreat to hideout to let his phoenix of democracy, Maryam Rajavi, to hold sway a democratic tactic after a long frantic phase of terrorism, heavily depends on propaganda ploys. Following a rather long propaganda doldrums, the UK court ruling, seemingly in favour of MKO, granted the organization propaganda machine a recovering opportunity.
It started all with celebrating the court ruling along with Maryam Rajavi who in turn began extravagant performances of welcoming the decision and sending messages of congratulations. The scenario continued with repetitive, lengthy TV shows and analysis programs with a variety of analysts who suddenly turned to be experts in law and judiciary affairs. It is all to justify what has long remained controversial and even the court left it unsolved.
Mojahedin insist to prove that the organization has forsworn terrorism since 2001. They mean to say, the organization has stopped engaging in militarism and terrorism only for five years after maintaining a terrorist structure and aggressive nature in a span of at least twenty years according to the essential grounds set out in the court’s judgment:
23.1. Whatever the accurate characterisation of the organisation’s activities between 1980 and 2001, the position in 2006-2007 is radically different, and has been so since 2001.
23.2. That the PMOI has conducted no military activity of any kind since about August 2001, whether in Iran or elsewhere in the world.
Although nothing is said about countless terrorist operations of the group inside Iran, even based on what is stated above, the Secretary of State could in no way trust the temporary cessation of MKO’s terrorist activities without an officially announced denunciation of terrorism endorsed by the leaders. In a letter dated 1 September 2006 sent to the applicants of the appeal that is included in page 9 of the court’s judgment, the Secretary of State has concluded;
“Accordingly, even though there has been a temporary cessation of terrorist acts, I am not satisfied that the organisation and its members have permanently renounced terrorism (para 22)
and:
“Mere cessation of terrorist acts do not amount to renunciation of terrorism. Without a clear and publicly available renunciation of terrorism by the PMOI, I am entitled to fear that terrorist activity that has been suspended for pragmatic reasons will be resumed in the future” (para 23).
Even the accuracy of such remarks that “the PMOI has conducted no military activity of any kind since about August 2001 is dubious and questionable. Corroborated by Mojahedin’s own official communiqués published in the group’s official organ, Mojahed, MKO has certainly conducted terrorist operations inside Iran. Only one of these cases, the Ferdows operation, is referred to in the appeal as the “glorification” of terrorism. Existing evidences confirm that at least until 22 August 2002, MKO had been ceaselessly engaged in terrorist operations. Here is Evidences Dismissing MKO’s Disclaim of Terrorism to substantiate the claim.
No doubt, MKO has a military structure and its inherent aggressive characteristic endorsed by its declared strategy of armed struggle classifies it as a terrorist organization that has justly been proscribed. Actually, to de-proscribe a terrorist organization, there should be factual basis presented to a state and upon which a decision might be made. There is no need to justify renunciation of terrorism by inferring from reports and statements published here and there. The first evidence any court needs in the first stage to decide de-proscription of a terrorist organization that has been conducting terrorist deeds at least for forty years is an official declaration of renouncing violence and terrorism as did an Irish group in May.
The Irish paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) through an officially issued statement declared that “as of 12 midnight, Thursday 3 May 2007, the Ulster Volunteer Force and Red Hand Commando will assume a non-military, civilianized, role”. The UK Secretary of State has the right “to reject or cast doubt on the evidence presented to him that the MKO had renounced terrorism and rejected violence”.
To deracinate the malign roots of terrorism, especially a dangerous terrorist cult like MKO, special care should be taken to avoid harm that might come from the snakes in the grass. The problem is that the majority of the group’s advocates have been kept in dark about its overtly atrocious terrorist operations on which it has dodged to contribute facts.
As in the case of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities released on 12 December 2006, nothing will come out of the judgment of POAC for Mojahedin. The only advantage out of it is its use as a vehicle of widespread, ceaseless propaganda, something MKO badly need instead of being removed from the list of proscribed organizations.
