Does the European Union believe there are now more key elements for classifying terrorism?
Do you know the MEK group?
Human Rights Overshadowed by Political Interests
Terrorism became the mainstay of European national security after the 9/11 attacks. Cross-border threats and the escalation of extremism across the continent have pushed EU security policies towards a comprehensive fight against terrorism. The influx of immigrants from Asia and Africa, and European market needs for labour, forced Schengen countries to accept large numbers of immigrants from different countries, race and religion. But the threat of terrorism is serious. Preventive countermeasures were implemented on various levels in different parts of Europe, and security checks for immigrants were placed on the agenda of the protection unit. Monitoring migrants with a history of membership in armed terrorist groups in the Middle East was carried out on various levels. But the question is the position of European countries on anti-government terrorist groups outside the EU. Did political interests, and sometimes differences in value, prevent European countries from dealing with the problem comprehensively outside the union? Why, in the years since the Iraq war, has the European troika (Germany-France-UK) not taken a united stand on domestic terrorism in Asia, Africa and South America? Human rights, which have been the mainstay of the union’s ideology since 1991, have been repeatedly violated by anti-government groups around the world, but how has it been addressed? Is the dual conflict linked to the political-economic interests of the leaders of these countries? Do human rights concerns Human rights standards in Europe and the United States are constantly changing, and this has made it more difficult to identify verification levels and a unified treatment of terrorist acts and groups. In the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, many left-wing extremist militant groups and militia changed their policies, and the European Union recognised many of them as internal opposition forces.
The MEK (People’s Mujahedin of Iran) Islamic Extremist Leftists
This extremist militant group was formed in 1965 by combining the Soviet socialist discourse with Islamic extremism. Initially, the struggle against the US-European-leaning monarchy in Iran was on the agenda of this extremist group during the 1979 Iranian revolution. But later, the group killed and killed large numbers of people and officials after the revolution by planning and carrying out terrorist operations. It became Iran. In 1981, the group assassinated the president, the prime minister, and 72 senior Iranian officials in an office building. The ideology of the MEK Organization has been described as “a mixture of Marxism, feminism, and Islamism” in the US State Department Country Report on Terrorism 2010.
Bloody Alliance with Saddam Hussein
After the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the MEK united with Saddam Hussein’s army in opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran. From 1987-1991, the MEK, along with the army of Saddam Hussein’s inhumane regime, carried out the massacre of 100,000-180,000 Kurds in northern Iraq. Other human rights abuses by the organised terrorist group include participation in the massacre of Shiites in southern Iraq during the 1991 uprising, support for Saddam Hussein’s regime in arresting and executing dissidents in the 1990s, and spying for the Iraqi Security and Intelligence Service from 1986-2001. Thus, in 1997, the MEK was listed as a foreign terrorist organisation by the Foreign Terrorists Organization (FTO) in the US, and the British Parliament blacklisted it for its close involvement with Saddam Hussein’s regime in the genocide of Kurds and the massacre of Shiites in southern Iraq.
But not everyone views the MEK in a negative light, as anti-Iran hawks have questioned why the group ended up on the US terrorist blacklist in the first instance.
Raymond Tanter, a political science professor who served on the White House’s National Security Council in the early 1980s, says to have studied the history of the group and is convinced it is on the “right side of justice”.
In a recent interview with MEE, Tanter said former President Bill Clinton placed the Iranian dissident group on the list of foreign terrorist organisations in 1997 to appease Tehran. “They were there because the Clinton administration wanted to do a favour to some of the so-called ‘moderates’ who had been elected in Iran,” he said.
Tanter said he avoids using the term MEK because of its affiliation with the State Department’s blacklist, preferring to go with PMOI, which stands for the People’s Mujahedin of Iran.
Liberation Against Human Rights
After the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the ouster of its only ally, the far-left extremist organisation distanced itself from its alliance with Saddam Hussein. Starting in the same year, the re-branding of the group began and, as a first step, they changed their name from the people’s Mujahedin to the National Council of Resistance of Iran, pretending to seek more freedom, democracy and secularism. Such actions by the MEK led to its delisting as a terrorist group in Britain and the United States, and by the United Nations.
Following the escalation of the Iranian nuclear crisis in 2006 and 2007, and a widening gap between Britain and Iran, the House of Commons removed the MEK from its list of British foreign terrorist groups in 2008. The British move, which was mostly political, was criticised by human rights associations inside and outside the UK. In 2012, Barack Obama’s administration removed the MEK from the FTO list under pressure from Iranian anti-government lobbies in Washington. The move was aimed at putting pressure on the Iranian government and disrupting its nuclear and missile programmes.
London is Asleep with Eyes Wide Open!
Maryam Rajavi is currently the leader of the MEK. Maryam Rajavi and her husband, Massoud Rajavi, have co-chaired the group since 1985. He was the Secretary General of the MEK from 1989-1993. He has also been “President-Elect” of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) since 1993. The National Council of Resistance was established as a broader movement from the MEK, but it is dominated by the extremist group and remains under its control. Some observers, including in the US government, refer to the two by a pseudonym and use them interchangeably.
Maryam Rajavi was first deported from the UK in 1997 for leading a terrorist organisation. Finally, on 29 March 2001, the MEK became an illegal terrorist group in the UK under the Anti-Terrorism Law 2000 due to its activities.
On 30 November 2007, in Lord Alton of Liverpool and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission (POAC) authorised Lord Alton to file a lawsuit against the Secretary of State’s refusal to lift the ban. It was concluded that the MEK was a terrorist organisation. As stated in paragraph 164 of the statement by the commission, Sir Harry Ognall said: “We have come to the clear conclusion that the Secretary of State has compelling reasons to believe that the MEK is directly responsible for many attacks, and more importantly, we have concluded that it has carried out many attacks over a long period of time, and the examples presented in Mr Fender’s testimony show the extent and intensity of the terrorist activities in which this organisation has been involved in some way throughout its history.”
Britain’s Blood Campaign
On 28 January 2021, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, led by the MEK, issued a statement against the Iranian regime to the European Union. The statement criticised the Iranian regime’s terrorist acts and encouraged the European Union to crack down on and expel Iranian diplomats from EU countries. The statement was signed by 20 former senior EU officials, including five former officials from the UK. Defenders of democracy and human rights in Britain have signed a statement by an extremist non-governmental group with a history of violence – a great setback to the values of British foreign diplomacy. The five former officials from the UK who signed the statement of an extremist and violent group include:
– The Rt Hon Tom Brake, former Deputy Leader of the House of Commons and Government Whip
– The Rt Hon Lord McNally, former Minister of State for Justice
– The Rt Hon Lord Frank Judd, former Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
– The Rt Hon John Spellar, former Minister of State for the Armed Forces and former Shadow Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
– The Rt Hon Baroness Verma, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for International Development
Does enmity and disagreement with the Iranian government justify signing a statement by a terrorist, anti-human rights organisation?
The MEK has been one of the biggest violators of human rights in Iran and Iraq. Is the convergent relationship with the old allies and friends of Saddam Hussein’s bloody regime a British diplomatic principle? What questions does the relationship between the lords and former British parliamentary-government officials with the group that accompanied Saddam Hussein’s regime in its crimes arise?
Former and current British officials do not have a common understanding of national security threats posed by terrorist groups. There does not appear to be a common view on how to deal with extremist groups within the EU. Unfortunately, the statement of 28 January 2021 was a heavy blow to genuine democratic values in Europe. There seems to be a value dichotomy within the EU that requires new criteria and principles for engaging with governments and non-governmental groups – principles based on operational records and adherence of governments and groups to the values of democracy.
Hard Screw: National Security or Political Interests
In recent years, UK’s relationship with the MEK has been driven more by British-Iranian political relations. In general, the violent, terrorist nature of the MEK has not been a measure of Britain’s treatment of this violent organisation and officials from both Labour and Conservative parties have sought to ignore the group’s security threats against their own political and partisan interests. According to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, British diplomacy with foreign national and transnational organisations, groups and institutions must be based on post-Brexit principles.
Individual, irresponsible actions by UK officials and lords can increase the cost of British diplomacy in the new post-Brexit era. Therefore, it is necessary to set clear, comprehensive rules and frameworks for the behaviour of all government-parliamentary officials and individuals so as not to witness a dichotomy in dealing with the issue of terrorism and internal threats to Britain.
Brexit: A New Opportunity
Brexit is an important opportunity for British foreign policy officials to embrace independent values. Relying on its diplomatic rules and national security package, Britain must take an independent approach to foreign policy opportunities to strike a balance in relations with non-Continental governments. Balancing and integrating British diplomacy with the rest of the world is one of the goals of the current decade. Thus, a new, comprehensive understanding of independent diplomatic interests by British authorities can help identify extremist terrorist groups and national security threats. Now is the time for a new roadmap with a new perspective.
