Maybe there is no blame in the PMOI issue
It could be, that after looking into this further, there is no blame to be allocated to either the Conservatives or the Liberals when it comes to contacts with the PMOI. Both sides tried hard to do the right thing in the murky world of Middle Eastern politics, while trying to stay true to personal and Canadian values.
From the Dudley Knox Library at the Naval Postgraduate School, a report on the MEK/PMOI:
The MEK philosophy mixes Marxism and Islam. Formed in the 1960s, the organization was expelled from Iran after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and its primary support came from the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein starting in the late 1980s. The MEK conducted anti-West-ern attacks prior to the Islamic Revolution. Since then, it has conducted terrorist attacks against the interests of the clerical regime in Iran and abroad.
Clearly the MEK/PMOI is not a friend of the West, but an enemy of the Mullahs. Allies of convenience. Enemy of my enemy and all that.
The group’s worldwide campaign against the Iranian Government stresses propaganda and occasionally uses terrorism. During the 1970s, the MEK killed US military personnel and US civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the takeover in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran. In 1981, the MEK detonated bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier’s office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials, including Chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, and Premier Mohammad-Javad Bahonar. Near the end of the 1980-1988 war with Iran, Baghdad armed the MEK with military equipment and sent it into action against Iranian forces.
That relationship with Saddam Hussein continued:
In 1991, the MEK assisted the Government of Iraq in suppressing the Shia and Kurdish uprisings in southern Iraq and the Kurdish uprisings in the north.
The MEK/PMOI has global reach, and that is a red flag in the War on Terrorism:
In April 1992, the MEK conducted near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and installations in 13 countries, demonstrating the group’s ability to mount large-scale operations overseas.
Remember what Liberal MP Alan Tonks said about the MEK/PMOI being "sheltered by international conventions"?
It is alleged that the theocratic Iranian regime attacked the pipelines in order to disrupt the Water supply of an internationally recognized and protected Iranian resistance group known as the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. The PMOI, currently seeking refuge in Iraq, have long been advocates for democratic reforms in Iran.
Members of the PMOI are sheltered by international conventions and should be respected by lawful governments. I would urge you to intervene in this matter.
Here's the meaning of that reference:
Over 3,000 MEK members are currently confined to Camp Ashraf, the MEK’s main compound north of Baghdad, where they remain under the Geneva Convention’s "protected person" status and Coalition control. As a condition of the cease-fire agreement, the group relinquished its weapons, including tanks, armored vehicles, and heavy artillery. A significant number of MEK personnel have "defected" from the Ashraf group, and several dozen of them have been voluntarily repatriated to Iran.
Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the rules are laid out:
Article 4 defines who is a Protected person Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state.
Article 32. A protected person/s shall not have anything done to them of such a character as to cause physical suffering or extermination ... the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment.
Does the MEK/PMOI really advocate democracy?
The MEK advocates the overthrow of the Iranian regime and its replacement with the group’s own leadership.
Excessive devotion to the leaders is not a healthy sign for a democracy:
Ideologically, the MKO is difficult to describe. Originally being based on a syncretic amalgamation of Marxist and Islamic ideas, the MKO was subject to a number of rapid ideological shifts (each allegedly accompanied by severe internal purges) and has developed a strong sense of veneration for its leading couple, Masoud Rajavi and Maryam Rajavi, which some have described as a personality cult.
So the MEK/PMOI is hardly the pro-Western group committed to the flowering of democracy in Iran.
On the one hand, we have a Conservative MP essentially tricked into appearing in front of a PMOI rally. But either by luck or good political instincts, all Jason Kenney said was that Canada supports democracy in Iran.
On the other hand, we have two letters from Liberal MPs urging the Canadian government to do what it can to make sure that PMOI members in Ashraf are being treated as protected persons. The ones in Ashraf are protected persons, they have disarmed, Canada is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and it would appear that Iran might have tried to cut off their water supply.
The Liberal MPs did not suggest that the PMOI be taken off the terrorist list, or that direct contacts be made with the PMOI, at least not at the political level. I do think they give the MEK/PMOI too much credit as being champions of democracy, but then the only way we'll ever know for sure is if they actually replaced the theocracy in Iran.
I think that the anger and frustration of the Boris Wrzesnewskyj situation has made both sides of the issue a bit too quick on the draw.
I fully expect people on the right to call me a coward, and people on the left to continue to demand Jason Kenney's head. I don't care, really, since I think I'm correct on this.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Jason Kenney Alan Tonks Derek Lee Conservative Party Liberal Party Canada MEK PMOI Iraq Iran terrorism Geneva Conventions
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
This is why I love a good blog site. The context of your piece shows the grey areas inwhich we need to consider in our commentary of politics. Kenny showed some diligence before speaking to a group inwhich he was lead to believe had good (and legal) intentions. As you have pointed out, the Liberal members were expressing humanitarian concerns over care and treatment of prisoners. Neither can truly be held responsible for having association with illegal activities or intent. Those who seek to call you a coward or continuing to extract more flesh for political purposes are just blindly venting. Fidei Defensor - Defender of the Truth... it can only happen if we first seek the truth.
Thanks again for the background.
Posted by: DarrenL at August 26, 2006 10:13 PM
I'm glad you like the blog, Darren. Adam Radwanski worried that political blogs are echo chambers where the comfortable doctrine is repeated without question. Posts like this one suggest it's not always true. Comments like yours lets bloggers know these posts are appreciated.
Cheers
Posted by: Steve Janke at August 26, 2006 10:33 PM
I think you might be right. However, does this excuse Day's call to remove the group from the terrorist list?
Posted by: Jason Cherniak at August 27, 2006 08:50 AM
Key thing is to stick to principles...and avoid foreign entanglements by not involving yourself in battles that really are not in your direct interest.
That being said, causing trouble for the Iranian regime, who are no friends of canada or canadians, doesnt bother me one bit.
But I wouldnt go out of my way, ie sarifice pricinples, to do it.
Posted by: Stephen at August 27, 2006 08:52 AM
..people on the left to continue to demand Jason Kenney's head..
Why would you say this? Why can't Conservatives who want this government to succeed demand accountability?
Nobody is asking for Kenney to be horsewhipped on the steps of Parliament Hill. However, a lower profile until after the next election could be ideal for everybody.
I'm actually more worried about Stockwell Day's involvement (if any) with this group. If it turns out to be anything more than casual, it could be very problematic.
Posted by: cb at August 27, 2006 09:58 AM
On the Kenney matter then, we are left with only 2 possible conclusions. a) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister of Canada in a 'la-dee-da manner' addresses any old group protesting in front of the House of Commons,(or) b) the man is not being totally honest with us.
So which is it? Is it Dumb or Devious?
Neither is a trait that Canadians should be proud of in a Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. I think you are giving this fellow a benefit of the doubt that he is not entitled to.
There is a double standard at work here. Kenney's verbal attacks on the MP's who went to Lebanon were not gentle. They were accused of MERELY suggesting that talks could take place with a terrorist organization. Mr. Kenney, on the other hand, has actually done what the oppositon Members were simply suggesting here.
Giving the benefit of doubt to Mr. Kenney reinforces the double standard that he, himself, created.
Canadians today are still awaiting his resignation from the position of Parliamentary Secreatary. Anything less than that - well, welcome to Tory Times in Canada.
Posted by: leftdog at August 27, 2006 10:27 AM
Any savvy politician would be very wary of commenting on M.E. issues. IT's a political landmine. I think PMSH needs a smarter parliamentary Secretary
Posted by: Fergy at August 27, 2006 12:26 PM
Do you know how often MP's speak to groups in Canada? Kenney spoke to a group who had hidden its identity who was protesting in front of Parliament Hill against executing a prisoner.
Borys W went to Lebonan and said people who WERE NOT HIDING their identities should be negotiated with.
What Kenney did suggests RCMP should be more careful about who protests in front of our Parliament. Nothing else.
Posted by: Kaz at August 27, 2006 12:56 PM
Winston is a blogging tory from Iran.He may know more about these organizations.
http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Fergy at August 27, 2006 03:14 PM
Kaz, you have once again made my point about the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Secretary. He is a bumbling, fumbling blow hard who should resign so that the PM can get someone who can politically walk and chew gum at the same time. How can you defend someone by demonstrating how inept they are? I guess Mr. Kenney ( and the Conservative Party) are more comfortable with Canadians thinking Jason is an idiot rather than dishonest. That is some comfort to you all, I am sure.
Posted by: leftdog at August 27, 2006 03:46 PM
Given all that we have seen from Kenny during this Tory government, he has neither shown himself to be a bumbling or fumbling blowhard. In fact, by all media accounts Jason Kenny has been observed by the media to be in control and an asset. Leftdog left out other options concerning Jason Kenny and that is that he was lied to or that a member of the group mentioned took advantage of the event and used it to promote another interest. Either way most of us did not recognize the PMOI or MEK until this issue came to light. As for the idiot comment, it was Borys W that was roundly castigated by his own party and the media. Us Conservative got to sit back with our popcorn and watch the fun.
Posted by: DarrenL at August 28, 2006 12:15 AM
The only word sadder than If in the English language is Maybe.
Is this the best you can come up with after all the rhetoric and wordiness over this issue?
Maybe???
Hope the fans enjoy their popcorn, watching a movie that will pass over their heads, and sadly they will carry on as if nothing has happened.
Maybe, just maybe, the next time they see an official on the lawn of Parliament addressing a crowd they may ask, "Who are they?" and actually stay awake long enough to hear the answer, if there is one.
Maybe.
Posted by: Mabel at August 28, 2006 02:26 AM
Mabel, if you can recollect, Jason Kenny did ask and even questioned his staff about their knowledge of the group. You may be unsatisfied with the answers given in support of Mr. Kenny, but he did not act recklessly or say anything inflammitory. As for enjoying my popcorn, the polls speak of the inability of the Liberals to play the "scary card." I will concede that once the Liberals have a leader the real contest of wills begin, but I will not be so conceited as to suggest how it will play out. An informed look at political history will show that we can't have a scary government...our country is too diverse and too big and without a set election date (especially with a multi-party system)any particular issue can bring down the government.
With that said, can someone pass the popcorn and make mine real buttery...It is going to be a great show.
Posted by: DarrenL at August 28, 2006 07:21 AM
The three points of this Kenney/Day and The Terrorists story are really quite simple:
1. The Prime Minister of Canada's Parliamentary Secretary spoke on behalf of the Prime Minister of Canada at a rally organized by and in part for a recognized terrorist group. Period. He either knew who he was dealing with or he was incompetent: I found 10 links between this front group and MEK in a quick 5 minute google search and Kenney claims to have interviewed the main guy (whose name he curiously (not!) could not remember) and his staff do extensive due diligence. If I could find the links using just google, why could't the Prime Minister's Office find out who Kenney was speaking to on behalf of the PM?
2. The Minister of Public Safety, the minister in charge of our defence against terrorists is on the record (a) saying it is wrong to call this terrorist group a terrorist organization because that doesn't help their cause and (b) spoke on their behalf in the House of Commons. Not only that but the Minister of Public Safety asked another Conservative MP (ret.) to deliver personally to the same terrorist group his "best wishes" at a rally in July in Paris, the same rally the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Secretary wanted to go to but the Foreign Affairs bureaucrats said no.
3. Faced with analogous situation, the Liberals, who are obviously only in opposition and not the government and therefore not right now representing Canada, in one case fired their critic who spoke in favour of de-listing a terrorist organization (Borys W.) and, in the other case, made clear denunciations of and disassociations from supporters of that terrorist group (D. Coderre).
The Conservatives need to realize that people are watching and the whole "our principles don't apply to us" approach and the whole "anything we do is OK because the Liberals are bad" approach, just doesn't cut it when you are in government.
Back bench MPs will be backbench MPs. A government or an opposition party are whoever they put out and allow to stay out there in public speaking for them. Wrzesnewskyj is gone. The Conservatives, meanwhile, rally behind Kenney and Day, and say the Liberals and the NDP are supporting our enemies.
It is really that simple.
The details and the links are all set out here.
Ted
Cerberus
Posted by: Ted at August 28, 2006 09:18 AM
Stockwell Day opposed PMOI/MEK's terrorist designation from the day the Paul Martin's government announced it.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/26/iran050526.html
The issue is very complicated. Controversially, the Liberal government of Paul Martin designated PMOI/MEK as a terrorist organization. Opposition MPs charged that this was done to placate the Iranian government in order to pursue Zahra Kazemi’s murderers. Stockwell Day, at the time, critic for Foreign Affairs was most vocally opposed. "...interfering in their investigation of the Kazemi case, will be interpreted by Tehran as a capitulation.
He questioned why a group that has existed for 40 years should only become terrorist now nearly two years after it announced it was laying down its arms. The timing and the intelligence around this is strange to say the least."
To summarize:
1. All PMOI/MEK members are being held by the US army at Camp Ashraf in northern Iraq.
2. PMOI/MEK gave all their military apparatus to the US army and renounced terrorism.
3. They haven't commited any acts of terrorism since.
4. Over half of the UK House of Common MPs signed a petition to have PMOI/MEK removed from the UK's terrorist list. Similar moves are taking place in the US.
Read more at http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=785190#785190
Posted by: PlaidShirt at August 28, 2006 06:47 PM
Through various cover names, the PMOI/MEK have made contact with Canadian MPs. They have been quite effective at pleading the case of those held in Camp Ashraf. Also, by aligning themselves with the democracy and feminist movements in Iran they hide their terrorist designation abroad. MPs from all 4 parties in Canada have become involved. One Bloc MP actually met and spoke with the group’s leader, Maryam Rajavi. At least 18 current and former MPs have supported PMOI/MEK in some way, sometimes unknown to them. This became a liability for two Conservative government MPs. Below is a list of MPs associated with PMOI/MEK. (Many of these references are hearsay, others are not.) It is quite possible there are other MPs who have associated with the group.
(Some links can't be posted.)
Jason Kenny, Conservative MP, Parliamentary Sec’y to the Prime Minister
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060824/kenney_rally_060824/20060824?hub=Canada
Stockwell Day, Conservative MP, Minister for Public Security http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/26/iran050526.html
Meili Faille, Bloc Quebecois MP meets Maryam Rajavi, leader of PMOI/MEK
http://www.maryam-rajavi.com/content/view/182/65/
Dan McTeague, Liberal MP, former Parliamentary Sec’y for Canadians Abroad
(No link available at this time. See archive of CBC Radio’s The House with Anthony Germain. Interview done in May/June of 2005.)
Paul Forseth, former Conservative MP http://www.ncr-iran.org/option=com_content&task=view&id=738&Itemid=1
David Kilgour, former Conservative, Liberal, & Independent MP http://www.ncr-iran.org/option=com_content&task=view&id=738&Itemid=1
Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal MP http://www.ncr-iran.org/option=com_content&task=view&id=738&Itemid=1
Hedy Fry, Liberal MP, (hearsay) http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/26/iran050526.html
Alan Tonks, Liberal MP http://www.mojahedin.org/mojahedinEn/resistance/792.html
Derek Lee, Liberal MP http://www.mojahedin.org/mojahedinEn/resistance/791.html
Omar Alghabra, Liberal MP
http://www.mojahedin.org/mojahedinEn/resistance/799.html
Colleen Beaumier, Liberal MP http://www.mojahedin.org/mojahedinEn/resistance/799.html
Paul Szabo, Liberal MP http://www.mojahedin.org/mojahedinEn/resistance/799.html
Bryon Wilfert, Liberal MP (hearsay) http://www.payvand.com/news/06/apr/1189.html
Susan Kadis, Liberal MP (hearsay) http://www.payvand.com/news/06/apr/1189.html
Jim Karygiannis, Liberal MP (hearsay) http://www.payvand.com/news/06/apr/1189.html
Svend Robinson, former NDP MP http://www.maryamrajavi.info/president_elect_support.htm
Alexa McDonough, NDP MP http://www.maryamrajavi.info/president_elect_support.htm
Posted by: PlaidShirt at August 28, 2006 06:51 PM
Interestingly, both the Bush Administration and Tony Blair's government - two even conservatives will no doubt admit are strong on terrorism - have refused to de-list the organization Day wants de-listed. In fact, the Bush Administration has turned down two appeals. The EU also lists them as a terrorist organization. CSIS lists criminal conduct dating back through the 1990s as reasons for its terrorist listings.
It's one thing for backbench MPs to have their little causes or even for Day as the Conservative Foreign Affairs critic to take a contrarian position to the Liberals, but what on earth is the Conservative government doing with this group, sending their "best wishes" and so on????
Posted by: Ted at August 29, 2006 02:36 PM
 
|
|
