Some MKO defectors recall a common amazing memory: After the US disarmed the MKO and realized that most of MKO members want to leave the Organization, they established a camp near Camp Ashraf and settled defectors-whether those who had escaped MKO or had left it with the assistance of Americans- in that camp. MKO, entangled in a crisis, resorted to dirty tricks to stop members from leaving. For instance, Americans’ interpreter in interviews was a woman called “Paria”. MKO bribed her with gold and jewelry and asked her to change the translation of defectors’ words (that is, to distort the reality) so that Americans open an unreal file for them. Defectors were not aware of this since they didn’t know English. But the time came for a former member who had lived in the US for years and had come to Iraq (MKO) from the US. During the interview, American general (State Department’s interviewer) asked if he was tortured by the MKO. He realized that “Paria” changed his words and said: “MKO treated me very well but I want to go to my own life”! He became angry by this distortion of reality by her and started himself to tell the truth in English. Americans fired her as soon as they found that she was not honest and employed another interpreter called “Fatima” (apparently from Afghanistan). It’s been said that Paria had not even a gold ring when she came but after a while, she wore several bracelets. Even the former members asked her about this. “Ms. Paria! You’re dressed with gold!!!??,” they said to her ironically. Indeed, why the MKO is so much afraid of realities regarding former members, being interpreted? If they have acted according to the criteria of human communities, and if they have observed democratic factors in their organization, why should they bribe an interpreter with gold and jewelry?! Isn’t it that they wanted to prevent the publication of realities?! But, these defectors and former members will finally cry out to the world and Rajavi won’t be able to silence these cries anymore.
Defectors of Mujahedin khalq
Nejat Society correspondent:
Mehrabad Airport- five more members of MEK fled from the evil Rajavi’s Organization and repatriated, on August 23, 2005 . According to received news these defectors returned to Iran on a private flight by the help of International Red Cross.
They stated that they have separated from the organization less than a month ago and joined the American camp.
Nejat Society congratulates the return of our beloveds to the families and hopes that all of the members captured in Rajavi’s cult, choose the right way and return to their families.
Eskandarie, Samad from Zanjan
Rahmanie, Ghader from Oroumieh
Seyed Mohammadie, Jahan Shah from Kermanshah
Mohammadie, Karim from Kermanshah
Salehi, Iraj from Mazandaran
Three former members of the terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) joined their families in the central province of Isfahan, said the head of the provincial Nejat Society here on Thursday.
Speaking at a ceremony marking the repatriation of the three former MKO members on Wednesday evening, Mohsen Hashemi said that Qasem Baba Safari, Bijan Shah Moradi and Hossein Janatinejad were among a group of the repentant members of the terrorist group who returned home after escaping the notorious Ashraf camp in Iraq.
Since 2003, Hashemi said, about 500 MKO members have managed to flee Ashraf camp and successfully return home through the cooperation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Iran’s Foreign Ministry.
Most of those being kept by the MKO had left Iran in the hope of finding jobs but later fell in the trap of MKO agents and taken to the notorious camp for hard labor.
The three were MKO members during 1988-2000, Hashemi said.
In a phone contact with the office of Red Cross, Mr. Khezr Aval, Deputy Representative of Red Cross in Tehran, said that by the assistance of International Red Cross, a number of former MKO members who were settled in a US camp in Iraq have returned to Iran on August 2, 2005.
He added that the office of Red Cross would release the names of new returnees.
Appreciating the efforts of Red Cross and other organizations, Iranian and Iraqi authorities and other organizations , we congratulate the return of defectors to the country . Taking it as a good omen, we ask the authorities on the fate of other former members in US-run camps and those still detained by the cult of Rajavi.
In a press conference in Paris, Mohammed Javad Firouzmand-former senior member of MKO- talked about the condition of this organization in Iraq.
After the US invasion to Iraq, he escaped from Camp Ashraf- MKO’s main headquarter led by Massoud Rajavi- and returned to Iran by the assistance of the international Red Cross. He left Iran illegally in a while and arrived in Europe via Turkey. In an interview with BBC, he said of his escape from Camp Ashraf:
– After the Americans took control of Camp Ashraf and its surrounding areas, they started to identify the members of the MKO. They said they wanted to verify that the members were not dangerous. Indeed, two times, they interrogated the members, fingerprinted them and opened a file for each one. The first time, this process was done with the presence of the MKO officials and therefore, it was not possible to escape. But the second times, none of the MKO officials were there. This was the only chance for me to escape the MKO without announcing my intention. I should say that I had once escaped the camp in 2001 but I was arrested by Saddam forces and I was imprisoned and tortured by Mojahedin, and then Massoud and Maryam sentenced me to death. Anyway, I escaped the US-run camp in northern side of Camp Ashraf.
* How many people are now in the US-run camp?
– If we consider it since about 18 months ago, when the first defectors started leaving the MKO, around 700 members have left the MKO so far. Around 500 of this number have returned to Iran under the supervision of International Red Cross and there are now more than 150 former members in the US-run camp, protected by Americans.
* How many remained in Ashraf camp? What’s your estimation of the number of those who want the leave the MKO?
– Around 3000 to 3100 are now in Camp Ashraf under the control of the MKO, without a clear future. Well, it can be said that all of them like to go. In past 17 months more than 700 escaped from MKO and this is unprecedented. And this loss of forces will take the MKO to a deadlock.
* How were you able to get to Europe? What events did you pass?
– In March 2005, under the supervision of Red Cross, there was no way out of Iraq and I was looking for a path to save myself from the hell of Iraq. Iran was the only solution, but a risky one. I said this to the Red Cross. I asked them whether they guaranteed my safety in Iran, because I had a long record of fighting the regime. They said no and that they couldn’t guarantee that in any form, written or verbal. Well, I accepted this risk.
* How did they, Iranian security agents, treat you in Iran? You and others who had returned from the MKO? during the interrogations?
– More than 500 former members returned to Iran. Around 14 returned to Iran just last week. I swear to God, and with 25-year record of fighting this very regime I frankly say that fortunately the elements of the regime received us from the Red Cross and delivered us to our families. They had no negative or bad behavior and I didn’t see any negative effect in their words or practices. This is a reality that I should say.
– Regarding to your past story, while your presentation in MKO, which event was the most astonishing?
– It’s more than an event, I remember the way Masud separated children from their parents, the first separations contained forced divorces, the children became teams, the younger ones stayed in the organization and were grown by babysitters. Relation with parents had been nearly cut. In 1991 during the first Gulf War, Masud Rajavi abused the situation and sent all the children out of Iraq territory.
– You say abuse, didn’t he really use?
– At all. Masud had ordered to put the flags of Iran and the organization all around the camps so that the camps would be saved from American’s air attacks.
– You want to say, he had signed some agreement with Americans?
– Yes, under his own order, I sent messages to all the headquarters so that the pilots could see the flags …
– Get back to the children.
– I understood that this work was not a security process because of two reasons, on one hand Masud didn’t order to take the old and sick members and on the other hand, to reach Jordan we had to drive across a road from Baqdad to Amen which was more dangerous than staying in our camps with a view to Americans air attacks.
– So, why did he separate these children from their parents?
– Firstly to prepare their parents for military service better, then to exploit the children.
– How?
– You’ll see. I was responsible for several buses carrying the children. When arriving at Jordan Border, we waited for more than 24 hours in the area between the two countries. It was forbidden to exit Iraq. The king of Jordan interfered personally and even received several children in his own palace and ordered to keep them in Jordan but we didn’t accept, therefore he facilitated their exit to Europe without passport.
– Didn’t the mothers come with their kids?
– No, we prevented them. While we were leaving the camps in Iraq, there were terrible stages. The mothers were groaning and crying. Some of them became mad.
– How could the children enter Europe without passport and their parents?Since, according to international laws, it is forbidden.
(Masud laughed)
– As usual, we played with the laws. We had organized small groups containing children and adults. We sent them to several European airports. In my own case, a young woman and I were responsible of five groups of , five to six year old children. In Frankfort when dismounting the plane, we tore our tickets and also the children’s, to make sure that they wouldn’t return us to Jordan. Then we appeared at police security check, and claimed that we have escaped from Iran and applied political refugee status.
– Did you introduce yourselves as children’s parents?
– No, as friends or relatives. Thus, the children arrived the country under the duty of the authorities of that European country, in my case Germany.
– In this way, they were lost for their parents and the organization.
– Not yet, since we had also thought of this one. German officials insisted on the children’s needs. According to our own orders, the Mujahedin had to introduce themselves as tutors, regarding their nationality, Iranian and knowing Persian. Instead, for each little refugee, the adopting family received financial aid from German government. The same process was accomplished in many other countries such as Netherlands.
– Up to here, it’s a little complicated but legal.
– Yes, the money German government gave, was not spent for children. Mujahedin seized it and sent it to Paris,their financial center.
– Keeping children cost a sum even if a very little sum.
– That’s why they were kept in one room in a group of five or six and sent to streets to gather funds under the cover of an establishment called "Iran Aid", after several months, the German and Dutch officials found out that the government charities for the children are embezzled. Therefore Mujahedin again distributed the children among the families.
– What happened to the children?
– They were finally grown up by their step – parents. But all of them have a revengeful feeling for their real parents and more than that for the organization. After years, the organization tried to take the possession of the children in order to recruit them for its campaign unities, but a few of them accepted; less than 20 among hundreds.
– What did you feel while arranging children’s departure from Iraq?
– At that time nothing. Since my brain was washed, just like all my other colleagues, I found it a usual process. For me, it was one of the results of our fight. But, today when I look back, I feel disgusted. Imagine mothers’ suffer , under the pressure of this extravagances, mothers today separated from their children …
– There is something strange in Mujahedin’s structure, and that is women’s position. How do you explain their number in high ranks of the organization?
– Marxism influence on Masud, justifies their choice to some extent. According to communism doctrine, the suffering class, victim class must lead the revolution. Considering the absence of workers, Rajavi proceeded with women. He presented them as a mistreated social class. The other reason is the problems of recruitment. Men are not enough, so he recruit women. Besides, for his campaign, Saddam aided him financially. And the last reason is that this method causes the men get marginalized to prohibit their ambitiousness.
– What has remained of NCRI National council of Resistance, today?
– This council was founded while Masud’s arrival to France, in 1981. He had to unite a dissident against Islamic government in Iran. Its principal members included Banisadr, PDKI Kurdish Party, and some other well known personalities. But, in March, 1983 Banisadr resigned from Masud and left NCR. On April 14th, Kurds Party also left it. Nowadays, NCR is only a dead and depraved establishment made of Mujahedin which has the duty of showing a democratic appearance and providing them a cover. In fact it has no independence.
– I’d like to know your answer to one question which has occupied my mind from the very beginning. Are Mujahedin a terrorist movement or not?
– I have no doubt that they are terrorists.
– Why?
– To answer this question, I refer to the rules announced by United Nations. An organization is called terrorist which has targeted the civilians on one hand and has used violence to achieve its political, financial or personal benefits on the other hand. These criteria are exactly conformed with Mujahedin’s functions and motivations.
– So why do they answer: "we are not terrorist but resistants’ "
– Resistant against what? As I know they don’t have any foreign armed campaign against Iran.
– According to their states, they resist against Islamism of Regime in Tehran.
– First of all, I don’t think that armed combat is a good means to change regime in Iran because it obstructs process and evolution. In this case, the condition just becomes worse. I believe in the transition of minds to have a mutation in Iran society. Not with violence. After twenty years of armed attacks to Islamism, Mujahedin didn’t do anything but making it more powerful. They were the best supporters for the regime.
– I’ve heard somewhere, that MEK and AlQuida are considered in the same position. Don’t you find this analysis exaggerated?
– Not at all. The both organizations use the same system of psychological training to recruit their members and send them to death. This is their weak point and strength point at the same time. The strength point; since in this way they have individuals who follow them to the death. The weak point; because they must keep the members, isolated, in a definite situation for a long time. Therefore they need a territory. In the case of Al Quaida this territory was Afghanistan and for Mujahedin it was Iraq. Nor this one and neither that one could train their members in a free country with regulations and morals restrictions and organize their operations.
– However we see the cults developing in free countries too. In Europe, for instance, they use the process of brain washing for their partisans.
– Yes, but they don’t lead them to a point that they commit suicide and terrorist operations. It’s simple because in these cults the absolute isolation is impossible.
– What other similarities do you see between these two organizations?
– None of them have principals. They consider themselves over rules.
– But Al Quiada says that it acts according to Qoran and prevents its members from eating alcoholic and other foods which are forbidden in Islam.
– They say what they like. AlQuiada also uses Islam as a means to lead its goals, just like Mujahedin. Ben Ladeen and Masud Rajavi claim that they are Muslims but they often don’t follow Islam. When they send people to death, it’s not for religion but it’s for their avidity for power. Do you think that all Muslims are convinced with Masud Rajavi and Osama Ben Laden declarations?
– In Rajavi’s case, I don’t know but about Ben Laden it seems in Muslim society, most of the people have feeling of sympathy for him.
– Not for a long time. Today terror operations of Al Quaida have mainly targeted the muslims’ countries; the same sisters and brothers they say. This is a suitable prove for the absence of principals in this organization. Rajavi kills Iranians and AlQuiada Muslim arabs. While presence of Soviet Union in Afghanistan AlQuiada took Americans part and today they are fighting them. Mujahedin were Imam Khomeini’s friends and were operating attacks against American civilians, then they assisted Saddam Hussein against Iran. Now they are looking for taking themselves under US flag. Now, you tell me they have principals?
There is another similarity between Mujahedin and Al Quiada:
The culture of suicide.
They use Islam to justify themselves. Although, according to a Muslim’s rule, a martyr is a person who dies to defend his/ her faith, not a person who causes him/ her to be killed freely and willingly. Mujahedin the same as AlQuiada believe in the highest value for suicide. Therefore you have normal martyr and saint martyr. It is graved, on the tomb of those who self-immolated in June, 2003:"Saint Martyr"
– You want to say their action was excited by the organization?
– Not excited, they were ordered. Maryam, herself wanted her fans to victimize themselves if she or Masud are arrested. In order to excite the members for self- immolation, a ballet was arranged in the organization and was performed as a real religious custom.
To be continued
Gathering of Roshana Association before German Parliament, Federal State of NRW, Dsseldorf
– Mr. Ezzati, Can you explain why you are here?
Ezzati: We are now before the Westfalen parliament; we have gathered here to help underage people who have been brainwashed by the MKO. Even people like Turaj or Alan Mohammedi who committed suicide were sent to Iraq at the age of 13-14. We have gathered here to say that these people should talk to international organizations in a free situation. I was there and I know that the MKO puts them under pressure. These young people don’t want to stay there and I recently talked to Amir Vafa Yaghmayee- the son of Ismael Vafa Yaghmayee, member of NCRI- and he said that he is under pressure even in the US camp and he can’t speak.
– How many people are there in the US-run camp?
E: the children of MKO, I mean dissident ones in the US camp are 4. Heidar Naghash, Amir Vafa Yaghmayee, Saeed and a girl, Azadeh Boostani.
– Are you familiar with them?
E: I have lived with them, in Germany and in Camp Ashraf.
– Do you gather here to ask the parliamentarians to return those having the citizenship of Germany?
E: We want them to send a group there. Talk to the children and let the children choose between Ashraf and Europe because the MKO has limited their choice to Iran and Ashraf.
– Why did the MKO let you out but prevents them from leaving the group?
E: When I was in Ashraf I knew that Americans don’t help anyone. So I believed that escaping from Ashraf is easier. I didn’t go to the US camp and I pretended that I wanted to stay with the MKO.
Interview with Ebrahim Khodabandeh
Interviewer – Mr. Win Griffiths came to Iran and saw the reality of your condition at first hand; but he evaded, in a way, admitting this reality! Why does a figure such as him ignore his responsibility and resort to partiality in his judgment?
Ebrahim Khodabandeh – There are various reasons for this, the clearest of which is his formal ties with the [Mojahedin] Organization. In the end, it’s been 25 years that he is working with the MKO and there’s a kind of formality between them.
Many MKO members (like me and others) are the people who have had relations with the people who are now in the House of Lords. These people have had contact with the MKO since they were young and were in the Labour Party and then they had become members of parliament, stood down and became Lords, but kept their contact.
There are a few such people, such as Win Griffiths, Lord Corbett, and Lord Clark; they’re the products of the 1980s when a big wave was in motion against Iran (at that time it was said that every 25 minutes an Iranian is executed). These people came at that time and I saw that Labour Party formally supported the NCRI. A representative of the Labour Party came and said that they wanted to support the MKO. Anyway, this was their policy at that time.
These [people] are the products of that period of time and when they retire, no one replaces them. Most of them are concentrated in the US and the UK; in other European countries you can’t find such similar conditions. This is because the MKO had strong foreign relations in the US and UK. It had people on the ground who had made friendship with parliamentarians.
There may be a thousand reasons for Win Griffiths’s position; he may have formal relations with a person in the MKO.
But this is only related to a person. If you look closer, you can see that support for the MKO has become restricted and limited. At one time, a majority of the Swedish parliament supported the NCRI, when Maryam Rajavi was in Paris, but it is now finished.
After that, it was reversed and opponents of the MKO in European Parliament increased. The MKO has never been able to get good support from the parliaments in Germany and France.
It also depends on the political situation of the MPs and their record as an MP. The presence of some people, who were influential, could be decisive; but Parliament is not an important organ in the foreign policies of these countries, and so the position taken by a member of parliament is not important.
If all the MPs of the world gather and sign a petition in favor of the MKO, nothing will be changed for this organization. All of them together can’t have the value of a diplomat or an expert from a Foreign Office. The professional views of such experts have always been decisive. No one, even a simple expert, in any foreign ministry, supports this organization.
Except with Saddam, the Organization couldn’t establish solid relations with other states; it has not had even a simple discussion. Other nations don’t count on the MKO to sit and talk to it. Instead, the MKO has always wanted a person from any foreign ministry to come and talk to them. This never came true for the MKO and then the terrorist lists showed up. First, the US list of terrorist organization and then, the UK, and then it was extended to European Parliament.
Now if you compare the words of Win Griffiths and the [Terrorism] Act [2000] passed by the UK parliament which introduced the MKO as a terrorist organization; they’re not comparable. I mean the words of Griffiths are not decisive.
Interviewer – Your explanations about the diplomacy of the organization and that where it is going and its propaganda positions have been very useful. But when we address Mr. Win Griffiths as a human being, he has taken a position against your case; how should we evaluate this?
Ebrahim Khodabandeh – We should remember that Mr. Griffiths is retired [as an MP] and he would be dealing with the supporters of the MKO. If I were him, I’d work cautiously because the members of the MKO are present there in the UK and I would meet them again; in the end, one should think that he had 20 years of relationship and he needs more caution than people like Teddy Taylor who has no formal relation with the MKO or Emma Nicholson who has always taken position against the MKO.
I mean this position taking depends on personal characteristics; it can’t be analyzed politically.
Interviewer – Another point was that the MKO put pressure on Homa Khodabandeh and tried to convince her that she should protest and set herself on fire. Mitra Bagheri had said this, 20 days before organized self-immolations in France; before Marzieh Babakhani and Sedighe Mojaveri in Paris and Neda Hassani in the UK set themselves on fire; of course, the total number of self-immolations was 16 out of which 2 deaths were reported.
But the organization claims that it was not organized by the MKO.
I want to establish a link between what the MKO had said to Homa and the events in France. Can we say that what happened in France was a move by the members themselves?
Ebrahim Khodabandeh – I can’t believe that even a move is performed by itself in the MKO; I mean if someone can do something in the MKO by himself, then the MKO is not the organization that I know.
If someone wants to drink water, it is done under the supervision of the organization. In most of the cases we couldn’t decide and waited for the organization to give us commands. We couldn’t even decide on the simplest affairs of all human beings.
It is possible that an official of the MKO has not directly ordered someone to execute the orders, but there are special methods to force the members indirectly to do something; the MKO is master at such methods.
For instance, in the meetings they didn’t tell us to attack a person, but they prepared the situation so that all the people in that meeting attacked a person who did not have similar ideas. In that system, ordering members is easy.
If it was something spontaneous, the people who were closer to the center of the MKO (Maryam Rajavi) should have been more affected; but why didn’t the veterans come to the scene and why were the younger members involved; why was it limited and why wasn’t it wider?
My daughter told met that someone had called her and said that ‘if she was really my daughter, she’d set herself on fire’. When they can say such things to my daughter, consider the things they may have said after Maryam was arrested.
They may have said that if something like this happens, we would do so and so; well, there are a number who are influenced and would do the same
Let me tell you something; if the MKO didn’t want these events to happen it had the ability to prevent them although the members had become very excited.
Interviewer – When Mr. Griffiths came to Iran, you asked Ms. Elahe Azimfar to come to Iran and meet with you in person and you guaranteed her return. Would you repeat this again? Would you ask her or any other MKO representative to come to Iran?
Ebrahim Khodabandeh – Sure; I’m assured that I can guarantee this. I’m sure about it due to the things I’ve see here. It’s not restricted to one case. One can see many things, courts, revolutionary courts, judges, interrogators, intelligence ministry; prison guards the families, people in the streets. All this can’t be a big theater.
My analysis is that right now, Ms. Elahe Azimfar can come to Iran. She can go around and see everyone and then she can return to the UK!
Who benefits from this? If you look at it very carefully, you’ll see that the only loser is the MKO. It is the MKO which should answer these questions: where’s the torture, where’s the execution, why was x not tortured, why was y not executed? This is one of the first results of such a visit to Iran.
Win Griffiths came to Iran and returned; he can say what he wants. That he came to Iran after 25 years of enmity with the Islamic Republic and supporting MKO, that he was welcomed like a guest, he went everywhere he wanted and talked to everyone he liked, and then he returned, that is enough.
He can say nothing; anyone who witnesses this must ask himself "Where are all those claims?" I mean there’s a contradiction.
Once we see a person like Emma Nicholson, who came here to say "don’t execute these people". She didn’t ask for anything in return. She was not given money. My brother asked him and she came to Iran and asked Iran not to execute us. And then we see how the MKO treats her.
What has she done that the MKO insults her? What has she said that the MKO is so angry? So, the only loser out of visits to Iran is the MKO and no one else.
That’s why the MKO tries to isolate those who talk about Iran and who go to the Iranian embassy. It wants to create a situation in which no one thinks of returning to Iran. A situation in which members think they have committed a betrayal; they can do anything but they must never approach Iran.
I know that the Iranian government has a good insight into the MKO and knows that if someone is separate from the MKO for 10 days, then that person won’t be the same again. Iran is always open to such people.
This is not like Europe. The punishment for armed robbery here is death, but how is that [Iran] pardons MKO members, even those who have participated in operations? Because they know that if a person leaves the MKO, and the ‘Current Operation’" [brainwashing] sessions are stopped, that person can be reconstructed and sent back into society. It means that these persons have not been terrorists and criminals but they have been in a situation that has forced them to be so.
Experience shows that those who survived their own [terrorist] operations in Iran, made a 180 turnabout during a short time. Unfortunately, some of them committed suicide or were killed during the operation.
This turnabout can’t be achieved through torture, or mental pressure since they were ready for torture and mental pressure. The thing they were not ready for was seeing reality. That’s why they were told to swallow cyanide capsule.
I’m sure that if someone like Ms. Elahe Azimfar comes to Iran, she would be warmly received and then she can return freely. Then she can return and say that she was tortured here.
She can say whatever she wants, it’s not important. But the only loser will be the MKO and the MKO won’t allow such a thing to happen.
Interviewer – It was announced on behalf of Mr. Griffiths that he is carrying a message of peace for Iranian officials and whether it is possible for the government to stop its enmity toward the MKO and issue a pardon or not. Do you think it was a personal request or was it something which had been coordinated by the MKO?
Ebrahim Khodabandeh – No, I think it was personal. As far as the system in Iran is concerned it has no problem. What would they want to do if they return to the country? Would they hold the ‘current operation’ sessions in a stadium?
The system’s behavior with us shows that it doesn’t consider the MKO to be a serious threat.
Win Griffiths said that he was personally opposed to armed struggle. He said that he didn’t accept that MKO has performed military operations.
Interviewer – Of course, he later withdrew these words.
Ebrahim Khodabandeh – Anyway, this was what he told us. He said that he wanted to create understanding. But I don’t believe that the organization will abandon its principles. Mr. Griffiths should know that MKO’s basis is that the regime should be toppled. Well, first of all, it should withdraw from this position and then there is room for other discussions.
For instance, first I say that I seek your death! Now I want to sit and talk to you. It’s impossible because I have not left any room for discussion.
So, this was something personal. He said that he had something like the model of South Africa in his mind. But the cases are not similar at all.
Interviewer – Mr. Griffiths and two of his friends had formed an ad hoc parliamentary committee to save you, "The Committee for the freedom of Ebrahim Khodabandeh and Jamil Bassam"! But as the MKO’s propaganda decreased, this committee was shut down (although if its purpose was humanitarian it should have continued its activities until achieving a clear result). Now the question is, whether these committees and other similar movements are created at the request of MPs or at the request of the MKO?
Ebrahim Khodabandeh – All the activities by these MPs are planned by the MKO. MPs are very busy. Iran may be at the bottom of their agenda. They are so busy that they can’t enter into such cases. They only let their names be used by such committees- which are usually fixed and are run by a few who have old relations with the MKO.
These committees don’t have formal or legal aspects. They’re not influential at all. They’re more propagandistic and help the MKO in its propaganda programs.
Interviewer – You mean they have internal applications in the MKO?
Ebrahim Khodabandeh – Yes, they’re used to recruit and keep members. For example, consider the committee which had been formed for us. It was not for our freedom. It had propaganda use, up to a point? Up to where? Up to when Baroness Emma Nicholson came and visited us. Then my daughter came and visited me. And later, Griffiths came and then the time for using this committee was expired.
One of the things that was explained here for Mr. Griffiths here was our case and the accusations against us. The UNCR also said that we should be returned to Syrian and that the extradition was illegal because we had UK citizenship. But they couldn’t charge Iran because we had threatened Iran’s security and Iran had the right to receive us wherever we had been arrested.
For instance, a number of people were arrested by the US in Afghanistan. They were taken to Guantanamo Bay. The US says these people were threats to its security. It was explained to Win Griffiths that there were clear charges against us.
It was explained for him that we should go on trial court because we had been arrested and charged.
Anyway, such committees have temporary applications; to fill newspapers and show activities and …
They show these to attract new members and keep some people busy.
Interviewer – You mean Mr. Griffiths has accepted Iran’s reasoning on judicial issues?
Ebrahim Khodabandeh – Yes, he had a meeting with Mr. Javad Larijani about us. They explained our case to him and said that they are ready to explain it for anyone who has criticisms of the judicial process in this regard.
These are mostly political noises, there’s no legal discussion in them. They lack diplomatic and legal value. They’re only for propaganda.
Interviewer – Thank-you.
With regards and thanks,
I read the long overdue, very brief but nevertheless justice seeking report on the inhuman behaviour of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation (MKO) after it was published. I preferred to wait to see the consequences of the report as well as the reaction which would follow before writing this letter.
Any crime can have four distinguishing characteristics. The first is totally related to the criminals and the others are based on that. The second is related to the victim of the criminals, the third relates to the defenders of human rights who have taken on the task and duty of exposing the crimes of these criminals, and the fourth relates to international public opinion and the international conscience to judge according to the findings and the reports produced by the defenders of these victims of crimes. The politicians and the men in power do not usually have a pivotal role in this part as their interests always come before their logic.
For years the MKO committed crimes on the regional level (Iran and Iraq) under the authority of Saddam Hussein. On the internal level also the MKO changed the organisation into an ‘ideological military cult’ using brainwashing techniques, and practiced a range of crimes to the extent that by putting every one under it’s sword, it tried to achieve a situation in which "no one would be left unless they have passed the process of internal revolution". On the international level, the MKO did not spare any action to get support and logistics for its crimes and to legitimise it for its forces, it called this "bridging".
In September 1995, when a number of survivors of the Mojahedin cult got together in Geneva to put their complains against Mr. and Mrs. Rajavi to the United Nation’s Special Rapporter to Iran, the MKO in a hysterical offensive, which revealed its anger at facing exposure of its crimes, shouted that the international and humanitarian bodies are all employed by the "mullahs’ regime" working against the "Iranian Resistance" and started a coordinated offensive against them. (Iran Zamin, [Mojahedin newspaper] number 9.)
Since then, whoever takes an stance against the Mojahedin, will first be categorised as being part of the ruling regime in Iran and then subjected to all sorts of attacks. This practice of course comes from the way of thinking that believes: "if you are not with us, you are against us, and if you are against us, you are with the Iranian regime, and to shed the blood of whoever is with the regime is of course legitimate".
Human Rights Watch, in a researched report about the MKO, has only looked at the crimes which have been committed against the members after they have distanced themselves from the organisation and maybe this is why the report has been titled "No Exit". But if we look at the psychological operations carried out by the MKO on its forces with a critical eye to the extent that the organisation is forced to stop using these psychological methods, it is clear that no one except a handful of losers would not stay there. Therefore it may be logical to ask you as an international body with the respected credibility that you have, to investigate into the brainwashing techniques used by the organisation and perhaps produce a second report in line with informing the victims as well as their families. In the next stage, it would be appropriate that all the victims of MKO terrorism, and the survivors of the MKO’s operations, and the families of the ones who have lost their lives, as well as the ones who have been disabled for life, would be invited to produce a report so that the few people in some parliaments who still insist on supporting this cult know the degree of crimes they are willing to ignore. Crimes as evident as firing mortars in the streets of Iran and publishing the reports of their disgusting activities in their newspapers.
And the third subject on which Human Rights Watch could perhaps work and produce a report, would be an investigation and a report about the systematic and planned crimes with the logistical, intelligence and military backing of the toppled Iraqi regime against Iranian soldiers, as well as the forces of the National Liberation Army of the Mojahedin which by any standard would be considered as war crimes.
The few backers and the huge number of critics of the MKO should know that respecting the human rights of every individual, irrelevant of their way of life, thoughts and political beliefs, is a basic which should not be allowed to be influenced by these offensive measures employed by the Mojahedin and we should not allow them to wear democratic clothing to hide their cult nature.
Maryam Khoshnevis
Ex member of MKO
3rd July 2005
cc:
Human Rights Committee in European Parliament
International Committee of the Red Cross
Amnesty International
– How did you become the president of Islamic Republic?
– As well as Mr. Khomeini, I was exiled in France. In that period, I composed a document which became the official speech of the revolution: in that document, I believed in reconciliating the principal tendencies of that time; the islamists, Marxists and liberals.
– What do you mean by liberals?
– I mean the ones who believe in the liberty of economy based on the independence. I arrived in Iran by the time Mr. Khomeini arrived, on February first, 1979. He introduced me as a fighter and defendant against Marxists and Mujahedin and Masud Rajavi. Now I had been changed too much through Iran evolutions, to expand my ideas of liberty. While electing constitutional council, in August, I was elected for the second position, after Mr. Taleqani. In January 1980, the Iranians elected me as the president of Islamic republic of Iran, by 75 percent of the votes.
( I was surprised of the title “Mr.”before the names of religious leaders of Iran. Besides if most of Iranian politicmen enjoy good electoral diaries and Bani Sadr is not an exception, it is due to Mr. Khomeini’s support and Bani Sadr forget to mention that his permanence in regime of Iran, was indebted to Mr. Khomeini’s confirmation. During that period of revolution, most Iranians supported everybody who was exiled by former regime and its rivals. Nobody could being elected by people and receive a high position unless he enjoyed this option. But I don’t want to reconstruct the Iran revolution here.
Since I and all my colleagues , in our profession, enjoy a sort of “journalistic license” to search for the truth and have an advantage of being rude to the highest officials, I questioned the former president of Iran on his personal consideration about his legitimacy and popularity. )
– Did you have relations with Mujahedin previously?
– No. it was a long later ,that Masud Rajavi contacted with me. When I arrived in Iran, I suggested him to dispute ideologically but he didn’t accept.
– Why?
– I guess he didn’t consider himself enough powerful to defend his ideas or to present a satisfactory dispute.
– Once, you were the president of Iran, your relation with Imam Khomeini became strained very soon. You also objected with Rajaee the prime minister elected by the parliament. Did you have contacts with MEK before the manifestation of Khordad 30th (June 20th, 1981) and your discharge by the parliament on June 21st?
– After coup d’etat against the president, I fled to some friend of Mr. Darush Forouhar, the director of the party of Iranian people. There, Masud Rajavi’s messengers came to visit me
(I couldn’t restrain myself from thinking about Darush Forouhar. In 1995 while my trip to Iran, I had visited him. He was an ardent man, with pointed moustache, who, energetically, defended the national inheritance of his country. In November 1998, he and his wife Parvaneh were assassinated in their house. I missed my mind presence for a few seconds, but Bani Sadr was going on:
– “A day after the June 28th bombing at Islamic Republic Party, Masud Rajavi’s men returned to me. I told them that I wanted to write a statement to reveal this terrorist action. They assured me that they had no interference in this one.
– Who talked to you?
– Maryam Rajavi’s brother, Mahmoud Azdanloo and Abbas Davali, they suggested to take me to one of their secret houses to provide my security. I accepted
(I didn’t say anything. Dispute was useless. But Samad Nazari [one of the defectors of MEK], in Sari, talked about some relation between MEK and Bani Sadr before his dismissal.)
Bani Sadr continued:
– I found myself in a one- storey building with four bedrooms and a bathroom. When needed, we used a secret exit to escape. I found out that Ashraf, Rajavi’s wife, was also hiding in that house.
– You mean his first wife who was killed later?
– Yes. One day, Rajavi came talked to me. He suggested to leave Iran with him. Firstly, I told him:”I’m the president of Iran and I have duties. If people participate in the next presidential election, I will stay. Otherwise I will leave my country with you.” On 24th of July, 2.5 million people of the 40 million population, all over Iran voted. Therefore I said to Rajavi :” Now, we can go”. In Paris, after landing at the airport, I told a BBC reporter:” I left Iran to reveal the organized relation between Khomeini and militarism…”
– Did you ask Rajavi for a guaranty?
– Before leaving Iran, we signed a contract. It was based on three principals: political pluralism, individuals’ liberty and national independence. I had presented detailed explanation for each of these principals
(While saying these words, the phone range, BaniSadr went out of my sight for a few seconds.
The images of their flee, were parading in front of my eyes. Regarding to his connection with Rajavi, on July 28th, they were presented in disguise at Tehran military airport. They took refuge in a fuel transport plane which was used for preparation of F14 in Iran Air Force. Clonelle Behzad Moezi was the commander of this section. He was Shah’s private pilot who was degraded by the revolution and he found it despising. The airplane changes its official direction in sky and crossed Iranian border and flew toward France.
As soon as they arrived, they were granted political refugee status. During those days, Francois Mitterand was ruling French fate. With no doubt, his wife, Danielle has played a part to make this decision. She was famous for her support of anybody who claimed Marxism. The fleeing ones, under protection of French authorities were settled in ” Auver sur d’Oise”. Rajavi had played his role well. Two days later, he established NCR (National Council of Resistance) of which one of the columns was BaniSadr due to his situation as the former president of Iran. Among the members of the council, there were also some independent personalities who opposed to Khomeini’s regime including Doctor Mansour Farhang, Bahman Niroumand, Mehdi Khan Baba , Doctor Naser Pakdaman. )
I had a question in my mind. when Bani Sadr came back, I asked him: “wasn’t it a risk to leave your country without knowing what is waiting for you and to fall yourself in trouble ?”
(His eyes hesitated behind his glasses. )
– I had to accept the risk, just like a religious duty. You hope to success but you know the possibility of defeat. I said to Rajavi:”I didn’t sign any contract with Khomeini, because he was a religious leader. He should have undertaken his commitment but he didn’t. About you, I know your ideology is based on achieving power and establishing an absolute system. If you change this ideology for a better direction, freedom is the best direction. Therefore your organization is useful for the democracy in Iran. Otherwise, I will denounce everything.
– However, you cooperated with him for three years
– Actually, two years and a few months
– On March 24, 1973, you separated from him officially. Although your daughter had married Masud. Here, we see the influence of a contract, the same as what was a custom among Feudal masters about their children’s marriage. What was the concept of this marriage?
– My daughter, Firouzeh, decided to sign this contract. I was against due to many reasons. Besides, I don’t believe in mixing politics with personal relationship. I know how Rajavi acts. He talks so much, until he sees his listener, dispensed with his own idea, and tired of challenge, and finally he gets her agreement. At last I explained to my daughter that we would test Masud and we don’t know if he would engage his commitments. My daughter told that she wanted to renew this agreement with Masud. So I had to draw in her horn and respect her independence.
– When did they get married?
– I’m a little confused about the dates. It must be a month before our separation. A few months after his first wife, Ashraf’s death.
I remember that I mentioned this to him, but he said:” Imam Ali got married immediately after his wife, Fatemeh’s death”. There were a few days left to Nowrouz. Therefore it was a short time before March 21st, 1982.
(To find out the dates, Bani Sadr talked to his assistant for a few words . I called the event to my mind. Masud Rajavi left his wife Ashraf Rabiee behind and fled from Iran. She was killed in an armed struggle against Iran security forces, with Musa Khiabani on February 8th , 1982. Musa Khiabani was the chief of Mujahedin in Iran. Masud had recently missed his wife and were planning for a new marriage.)
Bani Sadr resumed talking: You can write the date of the marriage March 1982.
– When did they divorce?
– In the late 1984.
– Why?
– One night, Firouzeh called me while crying and said :”Masud wants to take me to Iraq with himself. If I don’t go, he will divorce me. What shall I do?” I answered her:” you can decide yourself but if you want to undertake your engagement, you should divorce “. And so she did.
– So their contacts with Iraq were started a little before their divorce.
– Not at all. These contacts were much older. Every thing started in the early 1983. The same issue was the reason of our separation.
Extrated from the book: Burned Alive