|
United Press International
13 October 2005
By LEIGH BALDWIN
 WASHINGTON - Human Rights Watch reasserted claims of abuses by an Iranian
dissident group Wednesday even after a report compiled by a European
Parliament delegation denounced its initial report as "devoid of any
truth."
Earlier this year, the global watchdog group published a report alleging
serial abuses at Camp Ashraf, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq headquarters, six miles north of Baghdad. The report
described the MeK as an extremist sect, whose
leaders had exerted a manipulative psychological influence on their
followers, as in the case of the 1980s mass divorces enforced to ensure
total loyalty to their cause. Members who wish to leave the organization
suffered from beating and prolonged solitary confinement, resulting in a
number of fatalities, the report said.
The MeK denies the allegations, claiming an
Iranian conspiracy to discredit the group.
A report by the parliamentary delegation, based on a visit to Camp Ashraf in
September, backed the MeK's claims. In its
report, the delegation said that the watchdog group had gone "far
beyond the mandate of a human rights organization." The delegation
heard counter-testimonies from MeK members,
supporting this view and vilifying Human Rights Watch.
"We found the allegations contained in HRW report unfounded and devoid
of any truth. We also came to the conclusion that the HRW report was
procedurally flawed and substantively inaccurate."
The HRW has been criticized by the delegation for not visiting Camp Ashraf and
for basing their report on testimony gathered in 12 telephone interviews.
But HRW's Joe Stork Wednesday fiercely defended
his conclusions, throwing his own accusations back at the EU delegation.
"They're fine ones to talk about methodology," he told United
Press International. "The counter-testimonies are all from people high
up in the MeK. Most of the criticisms in the
delegation's report are from MeK sources."
Asked why HRW did not visit Camp Ashraf, despite
invitations from the MeK, Stork explained that
his organization's allegations dated back before the occupation of Iraq led by
the American coalition. "We were invited during the Hussein era. No
human rights organization could credibly take up that offer."
HRW had sought permission to visit the camp since the fall of Saddam, he
said. But "U.S.
forces did not respond positively to later requests. In hindsight, I regret
not including that in the report." Coalition forces in Iraq were
unable to confirm that these requests had been made, according to Stork.
The MeK was designated a terrorist organization
by the Clinton
administration in 1997. But the group has since won favor in the United States
by providing information on the Iranian nuclear program. In 2004, MeK members were given 'protected status' by coalition
forces in Iraq.
The group's seemingly contradictory status, at once a source of valuable
intelligence and an acknowledged terrorist organization, is fuelling a
fierce propaganda war between the MeK and the
Iranian regime, in which HRW, the European Parliament and the United States
Government have become players.
Stork is a target of an elaborate deception by the Iranian Ministry of
Intelligence and Security, claims Raymond Tanter,
a Georgetown University
academic and founding member of the Iran Policy Committee, which advises
the United States
government, citing a June White Paper issued by the IPC that describes HRW
as "victims of a world class intelligence operation."
According to the IPC paper, many of the witnesses interviewed by HRW were
in fact Iranian agents. These included Hossein Sobhani, "whom HRW cites as a "credible"
victim but who, in fact, runs an intelligence ring in Europe that works
under the direct supervision of MOIS deputy chief Mohammad-Reza Iravani."
"Human Rights Watch has been duped," said Tanter.
Terrorists or indispensable friends? Uncertainty over the true personality
of the MeK has prompted debate over the U.S.
administration's relationship with the group. In an October report by
Foreign Policy magazine, freelance writer Erik Saas
suggested that MeK intelligence might not be
quite as indispensable as their advocates claim:
"The group has a record of exaggerating intelligence or sometimes
simply making things up. U.S.
officials have learned to take MeK claims with
very large grains of salt," wrote Saas.
Nevertheless, there is, according to Saas,
increasing co-operation between the MeK and the United States.
(Although they remain on the U.S. State Department's terrorist list.) Saas even claims MeK fighters
have been deployed in Pakistan
and Afghanistan,
although this has not been confirmed.
Alireza Jafarzadeh,
President of Strategic Policy Consulting and former MeK
leader, says he sees no reason why the terrorist designation should not
soon be lifted. MeK was placed on the terrorist
list in 1997 as a conciliatory gesture aimed at Iran's president at the time,
Mohammed Khatami Jafarzadeh
told UPI. "The designation came weeks after Khatami
was elected," he said. But with the election this summer of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a shift
in policy was likely. "With the new regime, the situation will
change."
Tanter gives credence to the suggestion that the
terrorist list has more to do with political expediency than human rights. "The
designation is a diplomatic football tossed around to gain various
diplomatic benefits," he said.
Asked if, in the light of the HRW allegations, co-operation with the MeK could damage the image of the United States,
Tanter said: "American credibility is
damaged if it doesn't take sides with the Iranian resistance in general. The
U.S.
has to stand with the dissidents. That doesn't mean picking a group."
"Regime change is the implicit policy of the Bush
administration," he said. "Diplomacy has failed and the number of
nuclear installations makes military action unfeasible." If Tanter is right, alliance with dissident groups,
however unsavory, is one of increasingly few options.
|