Only weeks remain before the 81st session of the UN General Assembly in New York. Amid the side events and protests on Manhattan's streets, a group of Iranian expatriates holds a large, closely coordinated demonstration outside UN headquarters each year, timed to the Iranian president's address.
What looks like a spontaneous protest, the article argues, is an annual, highly publicized operation by a controversial organization with a violent past. Why do Western media and policymakers continue to engage with and platform a group that remained on the US terrorist list until 2012 and the EU list until 2009? And amid sharp tensions between Tehran and Washington, does it represent Iranians, or use the UN protest to advance its own interests and those of its supporters rather than Iranian democracy?
The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK or PMOI) is among the most controversial Iranian opposition groups. Its best-known international figure, Maryam Rajavi, has been designated “president-elect” by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), without an election. Many Iranians inside and outside the country strongly contest that claim.
The MEK's history is not one of peaceful political dissent. Founded as an armed opposition movement in the 1960s, it was involved in attacks on US interests in Tehran in the 1970s that killed six American military personnel and defense contractors. Relations with the Islamic Republic rapidly became armed conflict after the 1979 revolution. Its bombings and armed attacks killed many Iranians, and its leaders eventually moved operations abroad.
The article says the MEK's military cooperation with Saddam Hussein weighs most heavily in Iranian memory. Based in Iraq, it fought against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. For many Iranians, this is the main reason for distrust of the group and skepticism about its popular support. Following Saddam's fall, members left Camp Ashraf in Iraq and eventually moved to Albania in 2013, establishing Ashraf-3 as a new base.
Several European countries have at times banned or restricted MEK-linked demonstrations or activities, sometimes citing public-order risks and possible clashes among Iranian groups. The United States designated it a foreign terrorist organization in 1997. Following extensive lobbying, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton removed it from the list in September 2012. The State Department said the decision did not erase or condone past acts, including the killings of Americans in the 1970s and a 1992 attack, and raised serious concerns about allegations of mistreatment inside the organization. Delisting was therefore no endorsement of its past or its political legitimacy.
Behind the Placards
The MEK's annual gathering in New York under the OIAC banner can look like a confrontation between an opposition movement and the Iranian government during a pivotal diplomatic week. Behind the banners, however, stands an organization with six decades of contested history, formerly on the US terrorist list and now linked to Western lobbyists and backers. Supporters call it a champion of democracy; critics point to troubling questions about its history, structure, and violence.
Public records released by the UK's National Archives have prompted questions about the organization's finances and allegations of fraud and money laundering behind charitable activities. Former senior members and relatives of defectors have described mandatory veiling, forced family separation, and psychological pressure in its camps. Human Rights Watch examined allegations of abuse of members in a 2005 report, although the MEK disputed its findings.
The accusations raise a basic question: how closely does an organization presenting itself as the future of Iranian democracy observe democratic principles internally? The article describes an organization once linked to killings of Americans that now meets former US generals; one that advocates democracy but faces allegations of authoritarian control; and one that claims to represent Iranians despite its military alignment with Saddam during the war.
Commentary by Italy's Center for Eurasian and Mediterranean Studies, translated by the Habilian Association