report; future of iran

8/6/2019 Report; Future of Iran

1/8


2/8


3/8


4/8

The Meeting

Struan Stevenson, MEP (UK) opened the meetingby welcoming Mrs. Rajavi to the European Parliament.He then invited Mr. Paulo Casaca, MEP (Portugal) tomake his openning remarks

Paulo Casaca:

It is a great honour for me to welcome Maryam Rajaviin the house of European Democracy. It is a greathonour; we know it was not easy to make this meeting.We know that the Iranian government and morespecifically Mr. Kharrazi in Brussels during the lasttwo days he has been trying be all means to prevent thisto happen. They have written slander letters to nearlyeveryone. They tried everything they could to stop thisevent from happening, but they did not succeed. I think

that they should have understood that when one anda half years ago they managed to convince the Frenchauthorities to launch the biggest military operationin French soil from the Second World War, just to

persecute, to arrest absolutely harmless (people), theyshould have understood that this does not work, because

just a fortnight after this she was released because theEuropean justice in France was working. And wheneverthere I a political establishment that is taking a wrong

position we in a democratic world, we know that thereare institutions that we can rely on. So they should haveunderstood that their lies, their slander are not playing

anymore. They have been doing this in every domain.They promised and through the European institutionswe have been promised over two years ago that therewould be no more stoning of women in Iran. We justgot the news yesterday that in two weeks time theIranian regime intends to stone another woman onmoral grounds. They have been telling us time andtime again that the Iranian regime was giving up on itsnuclear ambitions and time and time again they provedthat they were not giving up their intentions. They have

been lying time after time. And after all these years Ivebeen accompanying the work of the Iranian resistance,that I had the opportunity of visiting Camp Ashraf in

Iraq, and stayed there for some days, I can assure allof you that what has been said by the Iranian regimeand their agents is simply slander; its not true. We arefacing a truly democratic movement that is actually themost advanced I know in all of the world that is ruled

by dictatorship. This is a truly committed movement todemocracy, freedom, and tolerance. And therefore it isfor us a fantastic opportunity to have Madam Rajavi atour side, and I will not waste none (any) of your timeanymore because all of us we want to hear what Mrs.Rajavi has to tell us. Thank you, thank you very muchfor coming. Thank you for joining us in this parliament

of ours.

Mr. Stevenson followed Mr. Casaca by saying: Yesterdaywe learnt that this week in Iran, a girl suffering frommental handicap has been sentenced to flogging andthen public execution by hanging for offences against

chastity. This is a girl of 19 with a mental age of eight.In August you will recall that a 16-year-old girl was

publicly hanged a 16-year-olg girl was publiclyhanged in August in Iran by the mullahs regime. Thisis after 120,000 executions since the mullahs came to

public prominence. In fighting this regime, Mrs. Rajavias the President-elect is both a brave and resolute lady; awoman who wishes to bring a secular democracy to Iran.I think all of us should pay great respect to her braveryand her fortitude; and we welcome you here today, Mrs.Rajavi, and I now give you the floor. Thank you.

Maryam Rajavi:

Messrs Alejo Vidal-Quadras-Roca, Paulo Casaca andStraun Stevenson,Distinguished Members of the European Parliament,The Rt. Hon. Lord Slynn of Hadley,Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear Friends,

It is a great pleasure to be among you, electedrepresentatives of the people of Europe. Yourcourageous stance in defense of human rights andfundamental freedoms is heartwarming to all those whoseek freedom, particularly in my homeland Iran.

I have come here at a time when the theocracy rulingIran has set new records in violating human rights.Through its increasing meddling in Iraq and pursuitof nuclear weapons, this regime poses the greatest

challenge to the international community.

In the face of this challenge, two options have beenraised: The make-a-deal approach to the clerical regimewith the aim of containing it or inducing gradualchange. For the past two decades, Western countrieshave subscribed to this approach.

The other option is to overthrow the clerical regime byway of an external war, similar to what occurred in Iraq.

No one would want to see this repeated in Iran.

But I have come here today to say that there is a third

option: Change brought about by the Iranian people andthe Iranian Resistance.

No concession is going to dissuade the mullahs fromcontinuing their ominous objectives. Let us recall theday after the 1938 Munich Pact, when Sir WinstonChurchill said in the House of Commons, You weregiven the choice between war and dishonor. You chosedishonor and you will have war.

History proved him right. But let us not allow a repetitionof the Munich experience by nuclear-armed mullahs.

Since two decades ago, the Iranian Resistanceemphasized that a viper would never give birth to dove.Seven years ago, we warned that Khatami had neither the

power nor the desire to bring about change. Appeasingthe mullahs continued, however, with disastrous

Friends of a Free Iran1


5/8

consequences. EUs trade with Tehran increased to 16 billion Euros. But even the bogus moderates did notremain in power as the most extremist factions havedominated the levers of power.

We can also see the consequences of appeasement in theregimes domestic and foreign policy:

Domestically, gallows are busy at work in cities andmass public hangings are on the rise. There were 12

public hangings in the first week of December alone.

In foreign policy, the export of fundamentalism andthe effort to devour Iraq is continuing relentlessly. Lastweek, the King of Jordan and the Iraqi President said

that Irans meddling wasthreatening the electionsin Iraq. The two leadersunderscored that Iransrulers seek to installanother Islamic Republicin Iraq, emphasizing such an outcome would upsetthe geopolitical balance in the region and in Islamiccountries.

To guarantee their survival, the mullahs are trying tobuild nuclear weapons. European appeasement provided

ample opportunity to the mullahs to inch closer to thenuclear bomb.

Tehrans WMD-capable missiles have Eastern andSouthern Europe within range and could reach WesternEurope if not stopped.

The Iranian Resistance has systematically exposedIrans nuclear programs. The EU troika, however,

prevented the referral of the mullahs nuclear dossier tothe UN Security Council during the recent meeting ofthe International Atomic Energy Agency. Ten days ago,

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the regimes number two,added, Tehran is set to be a member of the nuclear clubsoon and will resume enrichment after a maximum ofsix months.

In a nutshell, the regime ruling Iran is a medieval

theocracy that lacks the capacity to reform. Theprinciple of the velayat-e faqih (absolute clerical rule)is the pillar of the Iranian regimes constitution andcannot be changed even through a referendum. It formsthe basis for its laws and practices and accords littlevalue to the peoples vote. Election charades are onlythe means to solidify the Supreme Leaders control.Misogyny is inherent to the regime and a means to keepIranian society in check.

The ruling religious dictatorship needs the export offundamentalism in order to survive. Todays efforts to

build nuclear weapons and dominate Iraq arise out ofthis need. Last month, former Foreign Minister and theSupreme Leaders senior advisor, Ali Akbar Velayati,

said, If we take one step back, we will go down theslop of being overthrown.

Let there be no doubt: European policies such as criticaldialogue, constructive engagement and human rightsdialogue will not change anything as far as the regime

is concerned. Appeasement is not the way to contain orchange the regime. Nor is it the path to avoid anotherwar.

Appeasement only emboldens the mullahs. The answerto fundamentalism is democracy.

As I said at the outset, we do not have to choose betweenappeasement and surrender. The equation of eithera military invasion or appeasement is an exercise in

political deception. A third option is within reach. TheIranian people and their organized resistance have the

capacity and ability to bring about change.

Iran has an ancient civilization and a rich culture. Itis the cradle of Islamic civilization. It has been hometo three major revolutions in the twentieth century.Iranians would never submit to the medieval regime


Sitting in the panel

from left:

Rt. Hon. Lord Slynn of

Hadley,

Paulo Casaca,

Maryam Rajavi,

Struan Stevenson and

Alejo Vidal-Quadras


6/8

ruling them. Government surveys show that ninety-fourpercent of Iranians want an end to this theocracy. Lastweek, thousands of students staged a demonstrationagainst Khatamis presence at Tehran University onDecember 6, which marked the Students Day. Theywere shouting, Khatami, you are the enemy of the

people, enough of lies and where is freedom? Despite brutal crackdown, uprisings have continued to eruptacross the nation.

The persistence of protests in society reflects the Iranianpeople yearning for regime change. The presence of anorganized resistance with 120,000 martyrs and morethan half-a-million prisoners in the past quarter centuryis indicative of the depth and the intensity of societysrejection of the regime.

By forming a pluralistic alternative, a widespreadsocial network and a liberation army, the resistance hassufficient power and potential to bring about change

in Iran. It has led the Iranian peoples movement fordemocracy in the most difficult domestic and regionalcircumstances.

Politically speaking, such barbaric repression reflectsonly the mullahs fear of being overthrown by theIranian people and resistance. Why in all theirinternational interactions, the mullahs demand theexertion of pressure on the resistance movement? Whyduring discussions on the nuclear issue and in returnfor binding international commitments, they set thecondition that Europe blacklist the resistance? Why did

they openly call for guarantees that would prevent theregimes overthrow? Are all of these not indicative ofthe mullahs paranoia over the third option?

The resistance movement has deeps roots in society.As the core of this resistance, the Peoples MojahedinOrganization of Iran (PMOI) has been fightingfor freedom against the dictatorships of the Shahand Khomeini for 40 years. The PMOIs extensivenetwork across Iran organizes and gives direction tosocial protests, provides the movement with financialassistance and intelligence and reveals Tehrans mostclandestine nuclear, missile and terrorist projects.

With a democratic and tolerant vision of Islam, thePMOI is the antithesis to fundamentalism. It has exposedand isolated the violent and backward interpretation ofIslam by the fundamentalists. The PMOI message isthat Irans mullahs do not represent Islam. They areIslams enemy.

The PMOI is the most serious buffer against the mullahsfundamentalism and terrorism. It is a major barrieragainst Tehrans strategy to devour Iraq. Recognizingthis reality, half-a-million Iraqis issued a statement

earlier this year, demanding the continued presence ofthe PMOI in Iraq. Recently, more than 200,000 Iraqisinged a declaration, condemning the EU-troikasdeal with Tehran against the PMOI as countering theinterests of the people of Iran and Iraq.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran, theresistances parliament, is a coalition of democraticforces that seek a republic based on the separation ofChurch and State. Half its members are women. With themembership of religious and ethnic minorities as wellas different political tendencies, the NCRI represents amajority of the Iranian nation and is the guarantee forIrans unity after the toppling of the mullahs and the

peaceful transfer of power.

We have called for free elections under the United Nations auspices repeatedly. The mullahs, however,would never accept that. For us, democracy is notmerely a political program, but an ideal for which120,000 members of the resistance, including sixmembers of my family have sacrificed their lives. The

NCRI has committed itself to organize free electionsfor a constituent assembly within six months of regimechange and handover the affairs to the peoples electedrepresentatives so that societys deep wounds that were

caused by eighty years of dictatorship are healed.

By adhering to international covenants, interest in peaceand coexistence, we want a peaceful Iran, free from allweapons of mass destruction. We want to rebuild Iran,which the mullahs have ruined, through the peoples

participation, the return of our experts and friendshipwith the rest of the world.

The biggest obstacle to this change is the policy pursued by Western governments. The West is compromisingwith Tehran at the expense of the Iranian people and

Resistance. The most important, illegitimate anddamaging action was accepting the mullahs demand toput the terrorist tag on the Iranian Resistance. This labelhas no real basis or legal credibility. It has been used bythe United States and Europe to engage in deals with themullahs. After Khatami took office, US officials saidthat the terror tag was a goodwill gesture to the mullahsnew president. A senior State Department official saidthe designation was in response to the demand by theIranian regime and part of the policy of rapprochementwith the Iranian regime.

Another shameful acknowledgement was the official

document signed by the EU troika. First published byAgence France Presse, the document promised that if themullahs would accept to limit their nuclear program, theEU would keep the PMOI in the terrorist list. Accordingto the agreement, the EU-troika committed themselvesto fight against PMOI activities and provide securityassistance to the regime. The scandalous raid by 1,300French policemen on the office of the NCRI in Francerepresents a dark page in post-war Europe. In othercountries, offices of the Iranian Resistance have beenattacked in return for trade concessions from Tehran. Inall cases, judicial authorities declared that there was no

basis to the allegations linking the PMOI to terrorism orany criminal activity. The judiciaries in Germany, Italyand Britain closed the files on this issue. A French court,which overturned the order to expel political refugeesaffiliated to the PMOI, wrote that the PMOI does not

pose a threat to France.



7/8

A month ago, 500 distinguished jurists from across theworld presented nine legal briefs at a conference inParis, underscoring that the terror label on the PMOIviolated the European Convention on Human Rights,the fundamental right to defense and the principle of

presumption of innocence. They emphasized that any judicial proceeding emanating from the terrorist tagis illegal. A large number of MEPs, majorities in the

parliaments of Italy, Britain, Belgium and Luxembourgas well as more than 1,000 parliamentarians elsewherein Europe and a majority in the U.S. Congress statedrepeatedly that the PMOI is a legitimate resistancemovement and should be removed from the terroristlist.

The coalition forces, including 10 EU members,acknowledged after a 16-month investigation that thePMOI personnel were under Fourth Geneva Convention

protections and there was no basis to charge any of itsmembers. If not even a single member of the PMOI is

terrorist, what is the justification for the continuation ofthis tag?

The terror tag against the Iranian Resistance istantamount to ignoring the right of a nation to bringabout change in Iran. This label ignores that thirdoption.

The Munich Pact turned a blind eye to Hitlersaggression against Eastern Europe. Today, a nationsright to freedom is being denied.

We seek neither the Wests money nor weapons. Wewant them to remain neutral between the Iranian peopleand resistance on one hand and the ruling regime on theother.

The terror tag is a decree that sanctions the suppressionof a nation in the hands of a regime, which fifty-oneUnited Nations resolutions have condemned for humanrights abuse.

The removal of the unjust terror tag on the PMOI is alegitimate demand of the Iranian people. Based on myexperience with the people of France, I am convinced

that a solid majority in Europe also support thisdemand.

Let me address in summary form what I have alreadysaid to the distinguished members here and to the EUsummit that will convene in Brussels tomorrow:

1. The existence of the clerical regime is entwinedwith suppression and the export of terrorism andfundamentalism. It cannot retreat from any of them.2. By installing a puppet Islamic regime in Iraq,the mullahs seek to play the role of the hegemon in the

Islamic world.3. The mullahs are secretly continuing their nuclearweapons project in breach of their commitments.4. The third option, namely bringing an end tothis tyranny by the Iranian people and resistance iswithin reach. The policy of appeasement emboldens

the clerical regime to continue its policies, and wouldultimately impose a war on Western countries.5. The terror label against the PMOI lacks legalcredibility and was part of a deal with the mullahs. It is a

political obstacle to change in Iran by the Iranian peopleand resistance. Removing this unjust label is necessaryfor change and the creation of democratic Iran.6. The clerical regime is an impediment to therealization of peace and tranquility in the region andespecially in Iraq. A regime change in Iran and theestablishment of freedom and popular sovereignty inthat country is key to peace, stability and coexistencein the Middle East region and the end to violenceand vengeance in the birth place of Moses, Jesus andMohammad.

Dear friends,

We think of the future. This regime is devoid of a future.Iran and Europe are neighbors. We have enormous

interest is friendship and cooperation with Europe. Ihope that by correcting its policy, Europe would pavethe way for this cooperation with tomorrows Iran andguarantee the interests of the European people in theirconfrontation with fundamentalism.

In expressing my gratitude for your courageous positionsin defense of democracy in Iran, I ask that you employall means available to you for a proper European policytoward Iran and the removal of the terrorist label againstthe Iranian peoples legitimate resistance. The Iranian

people would never forget your efforts in defense of

human rights and democracy.

Thank you.

Mr. Stevenson then introduced Rt. Hon. The Lord Slynnof Hadley as one of the leading experts in internationallaw and a former judge in the European Court of Justice.The following is the excerpt of his speech.

Rt. Hon. The Lord Slynn of Hadley, QC:

I was asked with Prof. Jean-Yves de Cara, a very

eminent international lawyer from Paris, to advise onone question. A question of major importance to the

people at Ashraf (the camp belonging to the PeoplesMojahedin Organisation of Iran in Iraq). And thatquestion is the legal status of the members of thePeoples Mojahedin Organization of Iran in Iraq.

This question is in two parts. In the first place, whatis the status of the individuals. And that involveslooking at the various Geneva conventions that youas politicians know only too well. The first suggestionwas that perhaps the members of the Mojahedin in

Ashraf were combatants who had been involved in theconflict in Iraq. We came to the very firm view that theywere not combatants with rights and duties under theappropriate Geneva Conventions. They did not belongto an armed force on either side. They did not belong toan irregular force attached to either side. So, they were



8/8

not combatants. And, therefore, if they were detained intheir camp, they were not to be treated and did not haveto be treated as prisoners of war. It was quite plain toProf. de Cara and to me that on the other hand equallythat the people in Ashraf had rights to be protected

persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, with oneor two limited exceptions, which I will deal with. Theywere protected under the Fourth Geneva Conventionand we advised to that effect.

The second question, which was pretty obvious. Whatwas the position of the coalition once it occupied Iraq.Did that affect the rights as protected persons underthe Fourth Geneva Convention? We find it importantto stress that the sovereignty of Iraq continued despiteoccupation. So, the laws of Iraq continued. Andobligations of Iraq continued, both under the GenevaConvention and under the Hague Regulation. So, themembers of the Mojahedin and their colleagues wereentitled to continue their rights under the Geneva

Convention during the occupation: rights as individuals,rights to property, rights not to be deported from Iraq byvirtue of 49/78 of Convention.

Moreover, it was clear since Iraq had recognized theirstatus in Iraq, at Camp Ashraf and the other camps,as refugees, not as refugees under the 1951 refugeeconvention, but under Iraqs domestic legislation. Sounder this too, as political refugees they had a rightunder international law not to be sent back to theirown territories. And these were rights, which had to berespected. But even more important perhaps as a matter

of day-to-day practical reality, it was quite clear thatpeople in the Camp, member of the Peoples Mojahedin,had been recognized as a resistance movement ofa political nature. And as such, they had rights underthe international law. Perhaps, they had rights also asinsurgents fighting against the government of anotherstate. So, it was very important that these rights asmembers of a political resistance movement should

be protected when the coalition took over. It wasquite plain that for a number of years they had beenrecognized as having rights. They had camps on sites,which were recognized belonging to them and their

political independence was respected.

So, one would say categorically, without the possibilityof counter argument that for them to be sent back to Iraneither by either the coalition or by Iraqi governmentwould be a violation of customary international law anda grave breach of international human rights law. And Imust say that our arguments put to the coalition on thiswere listened to very carefully and with understanding.We have to balance the right to wage resistance inthe interest of democracy. Protecting the liberty anddignity of the people of a particular country have to

Friends of a Free Iran

be taken care of. Although terrorism is obviously notto be tolerated, we have to ensure that rights to achievedemocracy, to assist in the achievement of democracyare not frustrated.

A final question, to which Mrs. Rajavi has herselfreferred is a question of this new agreement that as longas there is no further nuclear activity, the Mojahedinwill remain on the proscribed list. This is a matterfor you as parliamentarians, as politicians, to decidewhether morally, legally and in international law thisis the right course to take. It might be said that you areeither a terrorist or you are not a terrorist. You dont

become a terrorist only if something else is done or notdone. You dont cease to be terrorist only if somethingelse is done or not done. It is a matter, as Mrs. Rajavihas stressed, of considerable importance aid for you as

parliamentarians.

Struan Stevenson:

In his closing remarks Mr. Stevenson said: We recentlyhad Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran who came to seethe Foreign Affairs Committee in this house and heludicrously told us that the new missile system beingdeveloped with the act of help of North Korea and withthe ability to deliver a pay load at a total of 2,500 km.from its firing range, was simply a weapon for defensivenecessities against Irans immediate neighbours.

I think anyone will understand that the threat now beingposed by Iran which is almost certainly continuing with

its nuclear enrichment program, despite their promises.The fact that they are now developing a third generationmissile delivery system that can travel even further than2,500 km.

The threat not only to the complete destabilization of thatregion, the threat is now to us, to the rest of the world.That is why it is so vitally important that we supportthe incredible and courageous work of Mrs. Rajavi andthe Peoples Mojahedin Organization of Iran. It is onlythrough them that this threat can be removed and it isonly through them that the greatly civilized and gentle

people of Iran can have a return to a democratic and

secular government with respect for women and respectfor human rights. And it is through the leadership ofMrs. Rajavi that we can achieve this objective.

So for that reason, Mrs. Rajavi, I am really, on behalfof all of our colleagues very grateful for you comingtoday for addressing this meeting in the EuropeanParliament.

I hope we may welcoming you back here as the presidentof Iran in a very near future indeed. Thank you.

If you wish to join Friends of a Free Iran orlike to express your support to the work FFI please e-mail us on

5

Paulo [email protected]

Struan [email protected]

report; future of iran

Documents