By Christopher Booker
In a street off London's Chancery Lane on Friday 400 Iranians celebrated a court victory that has left the British Government in a deep double embarassment. Not only were ministers found to have acted illegally in outlawing the chief Iranian opposition group, the People's Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI), as a terrorist organisation; they now face searching questions from their EU colleagues as to why they have twice incited the European Council to a unique act of defiance by ignoring a ruling from the European Court of Justice.
At the heart of this shameful story lies one of the most baffling riddles of contemporary politics: why should our Government have repeatedly acted in breach of the law, to appease the murderous regime in Teheran, which has played a key part in arming the insurgents who are killing British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?
This murky tale goes back to 2001 when Jack Straw, as home secretary, branded the PMOI, alongside al-Qa'eda, as a terrorist organisation. As Straw himself admitted in 2006, he did this "at the behest of the Teheran regime". The PMOI is part of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), backed by millions of Iranians who want to see their country transformed into a democratic, secular state, freed from the tyranny of the mullahs and the murder squads of their Revolutionary Guards, who have shot, mutilated or hanged more than 100,000 supporters of the NCRI since 1979.
In 2002, at British instigation, the EU added the PMOI to its own list of terrorist groups, a decision that last December was finally ruled "unlawful" by the ECJ. Unprecedentedly, in January, again at British instigation, the Council of the European Union agreed to defy the ruling of its own court, a decision it confirmed last June - even though by then the Foreign Office admitted the Revolutionary Guards were actively aiding the insurgents fighting British forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In August, 35 MPs and peers, led by former ministers, including Lord Waddington, a former home secretary, asked the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Committee, a branch of the High Court, to rule that the proscription of the PMOI was unlawful. Their lawyers produced a mass of evidence to show that the PMOI was not a terrorist organisation. The Home Office could produce no evidence to show that it was anything other than a non-violent movement campaigning for democracy.
On Friday all three judges ruled in the PMOI's favour, finding that the Home Office had ignored important facts, misunderstood the law and reached a "perverse" decision. It told the Home Secretary to lay an order before Parliament removing the PMOI from its list. Home Officer minister Tom McNulty weakly responded that the Government would seek leave to appeal.
The ruling deepens Britain's embarrassment in Europe, where it has twice successfully incited the EU to defy the verdict of its own court. In June, when Britain persuaded the Council to uphold its earlier decision, this was against the wishes of more than 1,000 politicians of all parties across the EU, including 234 MEPs and the Italian and Danish parliaments.
The fact that our Government has been shown to have acted illegally all along, to appease a regime which glories in hanging its political opponents in public, should persuade the rest of the EU finally to recognise how grotesquely it has been misled by British ministers, and to reverse its shameful action in line with the robust ruling of a British court. A good day for British justice, but one that leaves Mr Straw and his colleagues with some very uncomfortable questions to answer.
7 comments:
Those are two very interesting articles. Have you read Stratfor's take on the NIE report?
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/gir.php
Free Iran,
The article classifies PMOI as "non-violent" (presumably since 2003), though IIRC, the PMOI's disarmament (in Iraq) was not exactly voluntary. Perhaps once NCRI's organizations are off of the terrorist lists, they will rearm somewhere? Presumably, violent resistance should be possible without attacking innocents and being classified as terrorist.
Like Reilly, I'm interested in your take on the new NIE as well, particularly given the previous intel from NCRI. I've found some criticisms and context which make some interesting points.
Reilly's article also makes some good points, mixed with some questionable ones. It seems strange to me that Iran would halt its nuclear weapons development for fear of action by the US, but not provide assurances that they had done so. In any case, it seems they are still refining uranium. Making concessions in Iraq to Iran to appease their efforts at destabilization seems like a mistake that may encourage such tactics.
Kevin
Hi Kevin and Reilly,
The PMOI used to launch attacks against the military and security targets belonging to the Iranian regime, up to 2001. These were all regime targets; They were not civilian targets, or had not caused any civilian casualties. Of course, the Iranian regime has argued that the PMOI is "terrorist" and has kille civilians; But, I don't expect anything less than this from them. In fact, however, any evidence that the PMOI has attacked civilians has failed in two courts: One was the Court of First Instance, which is Europe's second highest ranking court. And, the otehr, as you know, was the court in England (Proscribed Organizations Appeal Committee).
So, in this context, whether violent or non-violent, the PMOI's struggle cannot legally or morally be construed as "terrorism." Only the mullahs will argue that. The PMOI's struggle, just as the resistance against the Nazis during WWII is within a context of war of liberation. This is a fact, and the PMOI's case in both courts was based on this argument; They won.
Now, in 2001, the PMOI decided to stop its military campaign, and turned into a complete non-violent movement. This was not because they are sorry about their past. It was partly because the terrorist designations around the world really depleted their resources.
Now about their disarmament in Iraq. This was an issue that was brought up in both courts (First Instance and British court). No one doubts that the PMOI VOLUNTARILY dismared. This was explicitly stated in the statements at the time made by American commanders. SO, the issue of dispute was not whether they did this voluntarily; It was about their intention. The British authorities argued that the PMOI did this for pragmatic reasons. The court ruled against this.
In fact, the PMOI had a large enough military to fight the Americans, and it would have done so if it was a crazy fundamentalist terrorist movement. But, they volutarily disarmed, eventhough, mind you, they were bombed by the American and British planed. They did not fire a single bullet in self-defence.
About the NIE report, I can only say that it vindicated the information the NCRI provided in Aug. 2002. Namely, that the regime was running a covert nuclear weapons program. This is good news. I believe the regime is still pursuing a nuclear weapons program, and it is proposterous to think otherwise. I don't know what the report means by saying that the regime has stopped its nuke crave. They're still enriching uranium, and they're planning to install 50,000 centrifuges int he following years. What else is there that they haven't done? Oh, wait, yes, they haven't built the bomb yet. Let's hope that won't happen.
Thanks for the clarifications, Free Iran.
So, PMOI stopped its military campaign in 2001, but they remained an armed military until 2003 in Iraq?
There's some strange politics at work wrt Iran and PMOI, presumably born out of competing strategies of confrontation versus appeasement.
Interesting follow-up. The hot air article seems to really take issue with the credibility of NIE, but only when it doesn't support their ideology. Keep in mind that piecing together intelligence is almost always highly politicized. I would dare say that civilians don't know the half of what goes on behind the scenes.
Reilly wrote: "The hot air article seems to really take issue with the credibility of NIE, but only when it doesn't support their ideology."
Their argument does agree with their politics, but which aspects do you see them ignoring?
Reilly wrote: "Keep in mind that piecing together intelligence is almost always highly politicized. I would dare say that civilians don't know the half of what goes on behind the scenes."
That is a good part of what I took from the hotair article, with details on the politicization.
The NIE report is very political, of course, as every other intelligence report. Kevin very wisely wrote that there are two camps: confrontation with Iran versus appeasement of Iran. These two camps both got their ammunation from the report. The appeasement camp may argue that, look, whatever they did in the past, the regime has stopped its nuclear weaponization program. So, we should engage them.
On the other hand, those who contend that the regime can only be stopped with a healthy dose of confrontation, can look at the report and say, Iran did have a weaponization program, and it would have continued it, if the opposition (NCRI) hadn't revealed the secret Natanz and Arak nuclear facilities. That intent, in and of itself, is a vindication of the claim that the regime must go. It persists on the path of enriching uranium, and again, that is dangerous because its intent from all this was weaponization from the very beginning. It is naive to think that the regime will simply back off when engaged.
Kevin, to comment on your remarks and question about the PMOI: Yes, the so-called "engagement" camp, which is formed of the remnants of the Iran-Gate scandal, wants very much to get rid of the PMOI, so that it can quickly engage the Iranian regime. The PMOI keeps messing up their strategy by revealing new information about the Iranian regime and its intentions, whether on the nuclear program, Iraq, Lebanon, etc. So, they branded the PMOI a "Terrorist" organization to have less distraction, and more room to negotiate.
The PMOI did stop its military campaigns in 2001, and that's why they won the two court cases. They retained their arms in Iraq, first because they didn't have anyone to give it to (they were weapons they had taken from the Iranian army during several cross-border military campaigns). Second, they needed it for self-defence, because the Iranian regime, which is armed to the teeth, was waiting for the opportune moment to attack and destroy them. Once they got the American protection in 2003, of course, they didn't need the weapons anymore.
Post a Comment