UK

British claim on the captured marine in Persian Gulf discredited by allowing Rajavi terrorist cult to act as its spokesman

The new diplomatic conflict between Iran and Britain over the capture of 15 navy personnel by the Iranian border guards has prompted the UN Security Council and the European Union to interfere to resolve the crisis.

The Iranians claim that the incident occurred in Iranian waters, while the British government insists that its troops were in Iraqi water and have never crossed Iranian territorial borders.

While diplomatic efforts, together with wider western pressure, are being used to resolve the crisis, the British Government’s position was discredited by allowing an interview with the Mojahedin Khalq Terrorist organisation (Rajavi cult) representative, Hussein Abedini (Mojahedin Khalq Organisation or National Council of Resistance of Iran) in London .

Hossein Abedini, a member of the Mojahedin’s alias the National Council of Resistance, in an interview with Sky News TV on March 29, in response to the suggested fact that the British navy personnel “have admitted trespassing into Iranian territorial waters”, says:

Well, this is what the mullahs say, but all the indications and all information proves that the British personnel, navy personnel were abducted at gunpoint and they have been taken to Tehran forcibly and they are being interrogated. So, we have information that this was a carefully concocted plan by the Revolutionary Guards and these plans always carry the seal of the highest political and military authority of the Iranian regime”

(http://www.mojahedin.ws/news/text_news_en.php?id=1133)

The claim of having information from Iran (where the group is hated for their cooperation with Saddam during Iran-Iraq war) is not new. ABC News reported the terrorist group’s representative in Washington as claiming:

"The Iranian regime is secretly engaged in the organization and training of large Iraqi terrorist networks in Iran to heighten insecurity and instability and force the coalition forces to leave Iraq, which would in turn pave the way for the establishment of an Islamic Republic in Iraq," Jafarzadeh said.

The same report adds:

"There was no independent confirmation of the latest information. The U.S. Mission to the United Nations had no immediate comment.

"His statement today is a public announcement that this group has been the source of allegations which officials are making about Iranian intervention in Iraq ," said Mohammad Mir Ali Mohammadi, a spokesman for ‘s U.N. Mission"."

(http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2968501&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

The group which remains on the terrorism lists of the US (1997), UK (2000), European Union (2002) and Canada(2005), has been used to discredit any information which has come out against the Iranian government.

http://www.iran-interlink.org/?mod=view&id=1114

In 1994 the US Department of State gave a report about the Mojahedin Khalq Organization, which is permanently headed by self-appointed cult leaders Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. It gave the most up-to-date and researched report in 40 pages describing the nature of the Mojahedin; their internal relations as well as their involvement in killing Kurds, Iraqis, Iranians as well as Americans. The report revealed their total dependency on Saddam Hussein.

http://www.iran-interlink.org/files/child%20pages/USstatedept.htm

In May 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a condemning report on the abuse of human rights by leaders of the Mojahedin against their own people in . Human Rights Watch also brought to light the way they have been using psychological methods to keep hold of their members against their will.

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iran0505/

It is widely believed that the Iranian Government has benefited the most from the freedom given to this terrorist organization in Washington and London . The Iranian Regime by refusing to accept any opposition except the Mojahedin Khalq (Rajavi cult) has long convinced the people of Iran that the alternative to the Islamic regime would be an Islamic Cult (Rajavi cult) which has been working for the enemy during the 8 years war with Iraq and which is now under the control of Neo-conservatives and Israeli right wingers who are pushing for a military confrontation between the west and Iran. Iran has also frequently used the claim that the terrorist organization is ‘the only source of western intelligence from Iran and thereby discredits and rejects all these accusations by default.

After the fall of Saddam and the disintegration of the Mojahedin’s military base in Iraq (disintegration of Saddam’s private army in 2003), it is clear that the presence of the cult in western capitals has now shifted the problem of Mojahedin Terrorism from Iran and Iraq (where they were working as an annoyance to the Iranians and Iraqis) into the heart of Europe and America.

The group, which orchestrated mass suicide and self-immolations in June 2003 in the capitals of western countries, has now openly threatened the west with more suicide attacks if they refuse to take them off the lists of Terrorist entities and allow them to continue their activities as a destructive cult.

Iran Interlink, March 31, 2007

April 4, 2007 0 comment

Update on Mojahedin Khalq Organisation in Europe

A number of British MPs in the House of Commons discussed the issue of Iran’s nuclear program.

In the meeting, the report of which was published by British Parliament’s website, UK Foreign Office minister Kim Howells responded to some MPs’ request for lifting MKO from terror list: "On the proscription of Mojahedin-e Khalq, the Home Office rejected an application for de-proscription last year and that is, strictly speaking, a matter for the Home Office."

"The MEK is proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 and its involvement in violence means that it has little support in Iran. The MEK claims to support human rights and democracy, but it is hard to square that with its authoritarian structure and claims by respected human rights non-governmental organisations of serious violations of the rights of its own members," he added.

In response to protests on terrorist designation of MKO, Mark Pritchard said:

"All solutions on Iran, whether by the international community or Iranian exiles, should be peaceful. They shouldn’t be aimed at weakening the position of current regime."

"I believe that we should respect Foreign Office’s decision to band the MKO".

"Mojahedin-e Khalq organization remains on EU’s terror list," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said.

In an interview with Iranian reporters in Paris, he added: "In France, this organization is still under prosecution."

"Prosecution began in 2000 and led to the detention of 165 members of MKO in 2003 and the trial of Maryam Rajavi," he said.

"French officials act in the framework of law and there’s no flexibility in dealing with the MKO."

In response to a question on France’s instance towards Hizballah and whether it was on EU’s terror list, Blazy said: "No, Hizballah is not on EU’s terror list."

"In our view, Hizballah has members in Lebanon’s Parliament. We like it to turn to a political movement from an armed one."

The European Parliament, in a meeting Tuesday, clarified that a European court ruling on the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) in December referred to procedural matters and in no way changes the status of the MKO as a terrorist group.

Belgian Foreign Minister Karel de Gucht has reportedly said that he will use his veto power in the EU Council to stop any attempt to remove the MKO from the EU’s terror list.

The EP’s Committee for Relations with Iran held a meeting on "the MKO and consequences of the judgment of the European Court of First Instance of 12 December’ to unfreeze the assets of the MKO. EU put the MKO on its terror list and ordered continued freezing of its funds in 2002.

"It is not a ruling on substance. It is a procedural decision stating that the EU Council did not provide the right to a hearing.

So it is a procedural shortcoming," German MEP Michael Gahler, who is also vice-president of the EP’s Foreign Relations Committee, told the meeting.

He said that the EU had sent a letter to the MKO stating the reasons why the group should be kept on the terror list.

"So it’s not correct to believe that there was any other reason.

The problem lies in a procedural error. The MKO will try again and appeal against a final decision, but I am quite sure that the Council will not go along with the ruling (of the court) at the end of the day," said Gahler.

A legal advisor to the EU Council also explained that the European court ruling had reference to procedural matters relating to the obligations to justify the reasons and give the MKO the right to a hearing, but it does not affect the common EU position to maintain the MKO in its terror list.

Josy Dubie, Belgian senator and a former war correspondent for a Belgian TV channel, condemned the MKO as a terrorist organization.

Dubie told the meeting that he covered the eight-year imposed war in the 1980s from both sides, that is, Iran and Iraq, and witnessed MKO fighters launching attacks against their own country (Iran).

"What I discovered was a sect, a group of men and women completely and irrationally devoted to their leader, Masoud Rajavi, which shocked me deeply. I had a feeling that I was among a group of fanatics who followed the orders of their leader blindly," he added.

Dubie, since 1999, has been a member of the Belgian Senate and vice-chair of its Foreign Relations committee. He said he has been recently visited by some MKO members.

"They target people they consider to be important and try to influence them. They try to convince these people that they are a democratic movement fighting for their country. But that is the opposite of what I saw," said the Belgian senator, who also clarified that he had no sympathy for the current regime of President Ahmadinejad.

"So when I received them in my office, I told them what I had seen and they did not contact me again because when they `realize it is not going to work they abandon you and look for somebody else,’" he said.

When Maryam Rajavi was invited by certain members of the Belgian Senate, they (MKO) claimed they had been officially invited to the senate.

"I deny this propaganda. The Belgian Senate itself refused to receive Maryam Rajavi," he said.

Some individual members of the Belgian Senate, including its President Anne-Marie Lizin, received Rajavi, who lives in Paris, last October. "A large number of senators protested, including myself," said Dubie.

Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht asked the senate about this matter and said he was very sore about this meeting and regretted that she had been invited by some senators.

De Gucht reportedly told the senate that the MKO had been responsible for hundreds of attacks in Iran and elsewhere, practiced torture and used emotional blackmail.

Dubie said he asked De Gucht in the senate about the court ruling on the MKO and whether the minister was in favor of removing the MKO from the list of terrorist groups.

According to Dubie, the Belgian foreign minister’s answer was:

"My answer to your question is very simple. I am in favor of keeping the PMOI on the European list and any decision to lift them or not to lift them requires the decision of all of the EU member states.

Belgium has a veto here and is prepared to use it."

"I can reassure you that the council has no intention of taking the MKO off the list," said the minister.

Mohammad Hossein Sobhani, a repentant MKO member and an author, related his long and bitter experience with the terror group in Iraq — how he was arrested and kept in solitary confinement for eight years in Asharf Camp and then in Abu Ghraib.

He asked the European parliamentarians not to use the "violations of human rights in Iran" as an excuse to support criminal terror groups such as the MKO.

Portugese MEP Paul Casaca, who organized the pro-MKO group ‘Friends of a Free Iran’ in the EP, had objected that since no MKO member was invited to speak, Sobhani should also not be allowed to talk in the meeting.

German MEP Michael Gahler said the agenda should not be changed.

"A voting of MEPs took place and the agenda was approved as it was." The chair of the EP’s delegation from its Committee for Relations with Iran, Angelika Beer, said she decided not to invite the MKO "because the information provided to me told me that the MKO has not been deleted from the list of terrorist organizations and therefore I did not find it correct to invite them."

March 11, 2007 0 comment

Britain Keeps MKO on Black List

A number of British MPs in the House of Commons discussed the issue of Iran’s nuclear program.

In response to protests on terrorist designation of MKO, Mark Pritchard said:

"All solutions on Iran, whether by the international community or Iranian exiles, should be peaceful. They shouldn’t be aimed at weakening the position of current regime."

"I believe that we should respect Foreign Office’s decision to band the MKO".

IRNA – 2007/03/01

March 11, 2007 0 comment

Mojahedin Assets still frozen in EU and UK

UK Secretary of State: Mojahedin Assets still frozen in EU and UK

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment she has made of the implications for the UK of the European Court Judgement of 12 December 2003 to annul the Council’s decision to freeze the funds of the People’s Mojahedin of Iran; and if she will make a statement.

Margaret Beckett (Secretary of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office) | Hansard source

On 12 December 2006, the Court of First Instance (CFI) of the European Community annulled the Council of the European Union’s decision to add the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK, also known as l’Organisation des Moudjahiddines du peuple iranien or People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran) to its list of terrorist organisations subject to an EU-wide asset freeze.

The specific Council Decision of December 2005 annulled by the Court has been replaced by a subsequent Council Decision of May 2006. The EU-wide asset freeze against MeK is therefore still in force. The EU keeps its entire terrorist asset freezing decisions under regular review.

The assets of this group are also frozen under UK domestic law. This is not affected by the CFI judgement, which is a technical decision on EU procedures. The Court did not rule on the substantive question as to whether the MeK is a terrorist group.

Source: Hansard, Thursday, 18 January 2007

Written answers, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Iran

William Hague (Richmond (Yorks), Conservative) | Hansard source

January 22, 2007 0 comment

The residents of Camp Ashraf are subject to the laws of Iraq

UK foreign Office: The residents of Camp Ashraf are subject to the laws of Iraq

Harry Cohen (Leyton & Wanstead, Labour) Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what her Department’s policy is on the proposed extradition to Iran of the Iranian dissidents in Camp Ashraf, South East Baghdad; and if she will make a statement.

Kim Howells (Minister of State (Middle East), Foreign & Commonwealth Office) Hansard source

The residents of Camp Ashraf are subject to the laws of Iraq, including laws on residency and immigration. We would expect the Government of Iraq to implement these laws fairly and with due regard to the rights of those concerned. Camp Ashraf residents who have not personally been involved in illegal activities are free to leave the camp and return to their home countries if they have the appropriate travel documents. A number have already voluntarily returned to Iran, where they are now living. Some 300 of the approximately 3,500 residents of the camp have chosen to return to Iran with assistance and support from the Iraqi Human Rights Ministry and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki recently announced that he would establish a committee to look into the continuing residence in Iraq of those people living in Camp Ashraf, who in the main are not Iraqi nationals. But we are not aware of any plans to extradite Camp Ashraf residents to Iran.

House of Commons

December 4, 2006 0 comment

UK Lords must eventually face the facts

Beginning 11th of September 2001, the west has in the name of fighting terrorism made enormous investments in the Middle East with little to show for it in the past 5 years. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are growing stronger with each passing day. And in Iraq, the coalition military machine is stuck in the bloody conflict between Shiites and Sunnis.

Perhaps one of the explanations for this disaster can be that few, if any, western governments can come to an agreement as to what terrorism means. Whenever the economic and special interests of the west are in danger, there seems to be no hindrance or doubt in working with known terrorists. The violent and barbaric regime of Taliban came to power in 1996 amidst a civil war with the backing of Pakistan and C.I.A. with funding from Saudi Arabia and U.A.E. And it seems Pakistan is now being portrayed as a close ally in the fight against terrorism.

Saudi Arabia was one of the biggest contributors to the Taliban regime and was one of only three nations worldwide which recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government. Today, these three countries are regarded as the United States’ allies in the ‘war against terrorism’. There are many examples of such double standards, which begs the question, ‘how are we to trust the west’s intentions in this global battle against terrorism?’

The west conveniently ignores human rights issues in countries which it regards as allies such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others. Clearly this ‘war on terror’ is a complex, multilayered issue.

A glaring example of the lack of clarity on this issue is that a number of western countries, in the name of fighting the Iranian regime, have chosen to support the terrorist cult of Mojahedin-e Khalq of Iran (aka MKO, PMOI, NCRI). The MKO has a 40 years’ history filled with violence and terrorist activities. This group has also shown the brunt of its viciousness toward its own members, and has resorted to torture and imprisonment and also killing of its internal opponents. The cult of Mojahedin-e Khalq, drew a large following with its anti-imperialist and anti-Israeli slogans during and after the revolution of 1979. They proclaimed in its newspaper that they would turn Iran to another Vietnam for the Americans and the assassination of six American personnel in Iran before the revolution was and always has been a proud achievement in their past. Of course they will deny this now, but documents and evidence show otherwise.

The MKO cult then fled to Iraq and for the next 20 years became a close ally of Saddam Hussein. Under the reign of Saddam Hussein the MKO became a more trusted part of his apparatus of power than his own Republican Guard. And he had good reasons for feeling that way. The MKO has a large and well connected public relations department that will distribute any news about Iran to the outside world no matter how small and insignificant. But it’s interesting to note that the Mojahedin-e Khalq have never publicly denounced the terrorist act of 11th of September either on their TV channels or their numerous websites or newspapers. Even more startling are the stories of joyful celebration which greeted the September 11th attack which were revealed by ex-members of MKO who fled the organization after the Iraq invasion of 2003 and the fall of Saddam Hussein. In 1991 when the Ba’athist Party and military was facing uprisings from the Iraqi masses, the MKO stood firm and helped to suppress the Iraqi people on Saddam Hussein’s orders. The Mojahedin-e Khalq saw their common interest with Saddam Hussein, and formed an even closer relationship with the Iraqi dictator.

Interestingly, the greatest support for the MKO beside Saddam Hussein has always come from the U.K. parliament; the House of Lords and the House of Commons. A number of these parliamentarians are unaccountably eager to present the MKO as an alternative to the current regime for the Iranian people.

A parliamentary group has been created for the so-called task of ‘freeing Iran’. I personally have no objection to efforts aimed at the establishment of a democratic government in Iran and have fought for the past 20 year for that same purpose. But when I see that these members of the British parliament are supporting a terrorist cult, then no matter how much I study it, I can’t seem to come to grips with the thinking and motives of these parliamentarians. I ask myself whether this is the result of old-fashioned British colonial thinking which deems it necessary to interject their involvement in the fate of Third World countries. Or could it be that the few individuals who openly support the MKO have short term interest in the form of payment from the MKO, as their reason of support? Or maybe it’s simply old age that has brought them to this decision?

When members of the Lords support the Mojahedin-e Khalq, then democracy and human rights have surely lost their meaning.

I’m certain that none of this support will lead anywhere simply because the MKO have no base of support in Iran and there is nothing but contempt for an organization that is seen as treacherous and an enemy of the people.

Western politicians must become aware that the people of Iran hate the MKO with a passion. Hundreds of former members of the MKO who have left the organization and have are settled around Europe and other countries are more than willing to speak about the facts surrounding this dangerous, destructive cult. I look forward to the time that particular members of the House of Lords finally pay attention to these facts.

Respectfully,

Karim Haghi Moni

November 22, 2006

Iran Peyvand Association

Iran Peyvand Association,Karim Haghi Moni,November 22, 2006

November 30, 2006 0 comment

UK has no responsibility for Rajavi cult victims in Camp Ashraf

Written Answers, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs – Iraq

Andrew MacKinlay (Thurrock, Labour) Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

(1) how many and what proportion of the people of Ashraf signed forms accepting their compliance with the conditions stipulated by the Commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq for their continued protection by the Multi-National Forces-Iraq;

(2) whether the letter of the Deputy Commander of the Multi National Force-Iraq to the people of Ashraf dated 21st July 2004 was on behalf of the International Coalition;

(3) on what date in February the headquarters of the Multi National Force-Iraq reaffirmed its commitment to Article 45 of the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of civilian persons, 1949 in respect of the people of Ashraf; whether the communication made reference to the principle of non-refoulment; and if she will make a statement;

(4) on what date the commander of the multi national coalition forces authorised the opening of bank accounts in Iraq by residents of Ashraf city;

(5) whether individuals in Ashraf have abrogated the undertakings they entered into with the commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq and which were detailed in the signed agreements prepared by the force commander;

(6) if she will publish the communication dated 7th October 2005 from Major General William Brandenburg on behalf of the multi national coalition forces to the people of Ashraf; and if she will make a statement.

Adam Ingram (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence) Hansard source

I have been asked to reply.

Camp Ashraf, near Baghdad, is outside the UK’s area of responsibility in Iraq. As such, the UK has no responsibility for, or involvement with, Camp Ashraf or its residents. These are matters for the US and Iraqi Governments.

Source: Hansard, November 6, 2006

November 14, 2006 0 comment

MKO’s political recruits still battling against British interests

Excerpts:

Brian Binley (Northampton South, Conservative)

I notice that the Foreign Secretary did not touch on the question of external resistance to the Iranian regime. Some time ago, the Americans gave protected persons status to the Mujaheddin of Iran in Camp Ashraf. Later, the German courts reconfirmed the rights of political asylum for Iranian refugees, whose status had previously been suspended. Only 11 days ago, the French lifted all restrictions on the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Is it not now time to urge the Home Office to take positive steps to improve relations with the Iranian resistance movement, both for their sake and in our national interest?

Margaret Beckett (Secretary of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office)

I am confident that the Home Office keeps those issues under review. I will, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman’s observations to its attention…

Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes South West, Labour)

I was part of the recent Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Iran. Everybody whom we met made it very clear that the MEK, to which the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) referred, is widely regarded as a terrorist group that was funded by Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. They said that, if we wanted a productive dialogue with Iran about its nuclear policy, the last thing that we, the Americans or any other EU member state should do is suggest that the terrorists in the MEK should be rehabilitated.

Margaret Beckett (Secretary of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office)

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point, based on her recent experience in Iran. As I told the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), the international community’s overriding priority is with the present Government of Iran. We believe that our proposals are very fair and very much to the advantage of Iran’s Government and people. We hope that the proposals will be considered speedily and fully.

Debate in full:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk

Iran

2. Mr. Brian Binley (Northampton, South) (Con): What recent discussions she has had with her US counterpart on the political situation in Iran. [80211]

27 Jun 2006 : Column 116

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I discuss Iran frequently with Dr. Rice. When we met in Vienna on 1 June, we agreed an imaginative set of proposals with our French, German, Russian and Chinese counterparts and Javier Solana. These offer Iran a way forward to resolve international concerns over its nuclear activities while enabling it, if it chooses, to develop a modern civil nuclear power programme. In making those proposals, we have again shown flexibility and commitment to a diplomatic solution.

Iran faces a clear choice. I hope that it will take the positive path being extended, and I look forward to an early response.

Mr. Binley: I notice that the Foreign Secretary did not touch on the question of external resistance to the Iranian regime. Some time ago, the Americans gave protected persons status to the Mujaheddin of Iran in Camp Ashraf. Later, the German courts reconfirmed the rights of political asylum for Iranian refugees, whose status had previously been suspended. Only 11 days ago, the French lifted all restrictions on the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Is it not now time to urge the Home Office to take positive steps to improve relations with the Iranian resistance movement, both for their sake and in our national interest?

Margaret Beckett: I am confident that the Home Office keeps those issues under review. I will, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman’s observations to its attention. Our chief concern at present is with the present Government of Iran and the considerable desire of the international community to introduce successful negotiations with them to restore confidence in their intentions.

Mr. Jim McGovern (Dundee, West) (Lab): What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the level of support in Iran for nuclear power or nuclear weapons? What sympathy is given to public opinion in Iran, the articulation of which seems to provide the President with his mandate?

Margaret Beckett: It is a little hard to analyse that from outside Iran. There appears to be a good measure of popular support for the Iranian Government’s assertions about their rights, which are understood. Obviously, there is a desire in Iran for access to civil nuclear power, and those of us dealing with the issue internationally believe very strongly that that is a clear possibility if the country abides by the proposals that we have set out. We hope that that will convince the Iranian Government that entering negotiations is in their interest as well the wider international community’s.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): The rather uncomfortable implication of the Foreign Secretary’s words is that Iran faces a fundamental choice between peace and conflict. Will the right hon. Lady make it clear that the situation is not as stark as that, and that a policy of diplomatic engagement will continue to be followed by the UK and the powers referred to in her answer to the original question?

27 Jun 2006 : Column 117

Margaret Beckett: It would be understandable if the hon. Gentleman had not had an opportunity to study the exact words that we used in Vienna. The statement then was made on a united basis, by all participants. Our clear offer to Iran was that we were prepared to resume negotiations if it resumed the suspension of enrichment. However, if Iran does not feel able to do that, the action being considered in the Security Council is something that we would have to consider resuming.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West) (Lab): I was part of the recent Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Iran. Everybody whom we met made it very clear that the MEK, to which the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) referred, is widely regarded as a terrorist group that was funded by Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. They said that, if we wanted a productive dialogue with Iran about its nuclear policy, the last thing that we, the Americans or any other EU member state should do is suggest that the terrorists in the MEK should be rehabilitated.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point, based on her recent experience in Iran. As I told the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), the international community’s overriding priority is with the present Government of Iran. We believe that our proposals are very fair and very much to the advantage of Iran’s Government and people. We hope that the proposals will be considered speedily and fully.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the UN announcement of 6 June was remarkable for its unanimity, especially given that it included China and Russia? Has she had any indication, either from her colleagues in the US Administration or from Tehran, that the proposals are receiving positive approval? They are comprehensive and complex, so should we not give Iran time to respond? If it makes a concrete response, would not that be a positive sign that we could move away from confrontation? That would benefit the whole world, but especially the people of Iran.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right that the proposals are both comprehensive and complex, but that is why we are suggesting negotiation. Concern would arise if it appeared that we were entering into a period of negotiation about negotiations. I am sure that he will know that the indications made to us, publicly as well as privately, by the Iranian Government are that they see ambiguities in the proposals. We are keen to ensure that any ambiguities are resolved. We continue to press the Iranian Government for a further meeting between Javier Solana and colleagues, and Larijani. I hope that such a meeting will take place in the near future.

House of Commons debate, June 27, 2006

source, Hansard

October 29, 2006 0 comment

Beckett: MKO is a Terrorist Group

BBC reports that British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, in her first exclusive meeting with the foreign press in the UK, responded to a question on the MKO and, about why the group was still active in Iraq said: "Britain considers MKO a terrorist organization and opposes this group. However, banning the activities of this group in Iraq is up to the Iraqi government and the US as the commander of coalition forces in Iraq."

IRNA also reported that British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said on Wednesday in London that the UK government still believes the MKO is a terrorist organization.

"This group is banned and there have been no changes in its status," she said.

She added that there was no relationship between London and this terrorist organization, declaring that the final fate of the MKO elements in Iraq should be determined by the Iraqi government.

BBC, October 12, 2006

October 14, 2006 0 comment

MEK Status in Iraq for Iraqi Government to Decide

Iran: People’s Mujahedin

Hansard: Written Answers

MEK Status in Iraq for Iraqi Government to Decide – Lord Triesman (UK)

Baroness Gould of Potternewton (Labour) Hansard source

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What is their response to the declaration concerning the recognition of the legal and political status of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran agreed at the congress of Iraqi people held in Ashraf City on 17 June.

Lord Triesman (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign & Commonwealth Office) Hansard source

Any statements or declarations made by Iraqi nationals in Iraq about the legal and political status of the "People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran", also known as the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) inside Iraq, are a matter for the Government of Iraq. The MEK is proscribed in the United Kingdom under the Terrorism Act 2000.

House of Lords

October 12, 2006 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts