Future of Iran:
Oppression or Democracy
Meeting on Iran at the European Parliament
Guest speaker, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi,
President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran
A Report on a meeting organized by the Friends of a Free Iran
on Iran and EU's policy on that country
On the invitation of The Friends of a Free Iran Intergroup, the
European Parliament was host on Wednesday, 15 December, 2004, to
Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the National Council of
Resistance of Iran, (NCRI) a coalition of Iranian democratic
Some 150 members of the European Parliament and their assistants
from all parliamentary groups, including several members of the
Foreign Affairs Committee, Parliament's vice presidents and
parliamentary group leaders, attended the meeting, to hear Mrs.
Rajavi's views on the challenging issue of EU policy on Iran.
In her speech, very positively received by MEPs, Mrs. Rajavi offered
a practical approach to deal with the challenge the EU is facing in
shaping its policy towards Iran. She rejected both the current EU
policy of appeasing the clerical regime "with the aim of containing
it or inducing gradual change" and also the call to "overthrow the
clerical regime by way of an external war, similar to what occurred
Instead, she offered a third option: "Change brought about by the
Iranian people and the Iranian Resistance."
This is an option that we in the European Parliament must endorse.
Iran's defiance in the face of the international community's demand
to halt permanently their uranium enrichment programme and their
continuing efforts to export Islamic fundamentalism, particularly to
Iraq, make EU attempts at conciliation the slippery slope towards
military conflict. To avoid that, we must lend our support to the
Iranian people in their endeavors to bring about change in Iran.
EU's efforts to encourage Tehran to change its behaviour have
failed. Concessions such as accepting Tehran's demand to include
Iran's main opposition, the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran
(PMOI), and a member of the NCRI in the EU's terror list, has proven
to be counter-productive. Mrs. Rajavi rightly emphasized that this
"label has no real basis or legal credibility". Distinguished
experts on European Community law and International Law have
questioned the legality of the PMOI's designation and declared that
it was without merit. (International Conference of Jurists, Paris,
10 November, 2004) This view was confirmed by Lord Slynn of Hadley,
the former judge at the European Court of Justice, and a world
authority on European law, who explained to us in the meeting in
Strasbourg that the PMOI is a legitimate political resistance
movement. The recent commitment by the UK, France and Germany to the
Iranian regime, that if the mullahs would accept a temporary limit
to their nuclear program, the EU would keep the PMOI on the
terrorist list, confirms the invalidity of the listing.
In this context, as members of the European Parliament, we have a
duty to contribute to the formulation of a correct policy on one of
the most important issues that the EU is facing in its foreign and
security policy. We are also duty bound to make sure the Community's
laws are respected by our own governments and not violated for
ulterior political considerations. Finally, we have a moral duty to
make sure fairness and justice prevail. Accordingly, support for the
Iranian Resistance, which represents the aspirations of the Iranian
people for change is the proper course of action.
Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca
First Vice President of the European Parliament
Struan Stevenson, MEP (UK) opened the meeting by welcoming Mrs.
Rajavi to the European Parliament. He then invited Mr. Paulo Casaca,
MEP (Portugal) to make his openning remarks
It is a great honour for me to welcome Maryam Rajavi in the house
of European Democracy. It is a great honour; we know it was not easy
to make this meeting. We know that the Iranian government and more
specifically Mr. Kharrazi in Brussels during the last two days he
has been trying be all means to prevent this to happen. They have
written slander letters to nearly everyone. They tried everything
they could to stop this event from happening, but they did not
I think that they should have understood that when one and a half
years ago they managed to convince the French authorities to launch
the biggest military operation in French soil from the Second World
War, just to persecute, to arrest absolutely harmless (people), they
should have understood that this does not work, because just a
fortnight after this she was released because the European justice
in France was working. And whenever there I a political
establishment that is taking a wrong position we in a democratic
world, we know that there are institutions that we can rely on. So
they should have understood that their lies, their slander are not
They have been doing this in every domain. They promised and through
the European institutions we have been promised over two years ago
that there would be no more stoning of women in Iran. We just got
the news yesterday that in two weeks time the Iranian regime intends
to stone another woman on ‘moral grounds'. They have been telling us
time and time again that the Iranian regime was giving up on its
nuclear ambitions and time and time again they proved that they were
not giving up their intentions. They have been lying time after
time. And after all these years I've been 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 all of
you that what has been said by the Iranian regime and their agents
is simply slander; its not true. We are facing a truly democratic
movement that is actually the most advanced I know in all of the
world that is ruled by dictatorship.
This is a truly committed movement to democracy, freedom, and
tolerance. And therefore it is for us a fantastic opportunity to
have Madam Rajavi at our side, and I will not waste none (any) of
your time anymore because all of us we want to hear what Mrs. Rajavi
has to tell us. Thank you, thank you very much for coming. Thank you
for joining us in this parliament of ours.
Mr. Stevenson followed Mr. Casaca by saying: Yesterday we learnt
that this week in Iran, a girl suffering from mental handicap has
been sentenced to flogging and then 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 publicly hanged in August
in Iran by the mullahs' regime. This is after 120,000 executions
since the mullahs came to public prominence. In fighting this
regime, Mrs. Rajavi as the President-elect is both a brave and
resolute lady; a woman who wishes to bring a secular democracy to
Iran. I think all of us should pay great respect to her bravery and
her fortitude; and we welcome you here today, Mrs. Rajavi, and I now
give you the floor.
Messrs Alejo Vidal-Quadras-Roca, Paulo Casaca and Straun
Distinguished Members of the European Parliament,
The Rt. Hon. Lord Slynn of Hadley,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure to be among you, elected representatives of
the people of Europe. Your courageous stance in defense of human
rights and fundamental freedoms is heartwarming to all those who
seek freedom, particularly in my homeland Iran.
Sitting in the panel from left: Rt. Hon. Lord Slynn of Hadley,
Paula Casaca, Maryam Rajavi, Straun Stevenson, and Alejo Vidal-Quadras
I have come here at a time when the theocracy ruling Iran has set
new records in violating human rights. Through its increasing
meddling in Iraq and pursuit of nuclear weapons, this regime poses
the greatest challenge to the international community.
In the face of this challenge, two options have been raised: The
make-a-deal approach to the clerical regime with the aim of
containing it or inducing gradual change. For the past two decades,
Western countries have subscribed to this approach.
The other option is to overthrow the clerical regime by way 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 and the Iranian
No concession is going to dissuade the mullahs from continuing their
ominous objectives. Let us recall the day after the 1938 Munich
Pact, when Sir Winston Churchill said in the House of Commons, "You
were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor
and you will have war."
History proved him right. But let us not allow a repetition of the
Munich experience by nuclear-armed mullahs.
Since two decades ago, the Iranian Resistance emphasized 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. Appeasing the mullahs continued, however, with disastrous
consequences. EU's trade with Tehran increased to 16 billion Euros.
But even the bogus moderates did not remain in power as the most
extremist factions have dominated the levers of power.
We can also see the consequences of appeasement in the regime's
domestic and foreign policy:
Domestically, gallows are busy at work in cities and mass 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 and the effort to
devour Iraq is continuing relentlessly. Last week, the King of
Jordan and the Iraqi President said that Iran's meddling was
threatening the elections in Iraq. The two leaders underscored that
Iran's rulers seek to install another Islamic Republic in Iraq,
emphasizing such an outcome would upset the geopolitical balance in
the region and in Islamic countries.
To guarantee their survival, the mullahs are trying to build
nuclear weapons. European appeasement provided ample opportunity to
the mullahs to inch closer to the nuclear bomb.
Tehran's WMD-capable missiles have Eastern and Southern Europe
within range and could reach Western Europe if not stopped.
The Iranian Resistance has systematically exposed Iran's nuclear
programs. The EU troika, however, prevented the referral of the
mullahs' nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council during the
recent meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Ten days
ago, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the regime's number two, added,
"Tehran is set to be a member of the nuclear club soon and will
resume enrichment after a maximum of six months."
In a nutshell, the regime ruling Iran is a medieval theocracy that
lacks the capacity to reform. The principle of the velayat-e faqih
(absolute clerical rule) is the pillar of the Iranian regime's
constitution and cannot be changed even through a referendum. It
forms the basis for its laws and practices and accords little value
to the people's vote. Election charades are only the means to
solidify the Supreme Leader's control.
Misogyny is inherent to the regime and a means to keep Iranian
society in check.
The ruling religious dictatorship needs the export of
fundamentalism in order to survive. Today's efforts to build nuclear
weapons and dominate Iraq arise out of this need. Last month, former
Foreign Minister and the Supreme Leader's senior advisor, Ali Akbar
Velayati, said, "If we take one step back, we will go down the slop
of being overthrown."
Let there be no doubt: European policies such as critical dialogue,
constructive engagement and human rights dialogue will not change
anything as far as the regime is concerned. Appeasement is not the
way to contain or change the regime. Nor is it the path to avoid
Appeasement only emboldens the mullahs. The answer to fundamentalism
As I said at the outset, we do not have to choose between
appeasement and surrender. The equation of "either a military
invasion or appeasement" is an exercise in political deception. A
third option is within reach. The Iranian people and their organized
resistance have the capacity and ability to bring about change.
Iran has an ancient civilization and a rich culture. It is the
cradle of Islamic civilization. It has been home to three major
revolutions in the twentieth century. Iranians would never submit to
the medieval regime ruling them. Government surveys show that
ninety-four percent of Iranians want an end to this theocracy. Last
week, thousands of students staged a demonstration against Khatami's
presence at Tehran University on December 6, which marked the
Students' Day. They were shouting, Khatami, you are the enemy of the
people, enough of lies and where is freedom? Despite brutal
crackdown, uprisings have continued to erupt across the nation.
The persistence of protests in society reflects the Iranian people
yearning for regime change. The presence of an organized resistance
with 120,000 martyrs and more than half-a-million prisoners in the
past quarter century is indicative of the depth and the intensity of
society's rejection of the regime.
By forming a pluralistic alternative, a widespread social network
and a liberation army, the resistance has sufficient power and
potential to bring about change in Iran. It has led the Iranian
people's movement for democracy in the most difficult domestic and
Politically speaking, such barbaric repression reflects only the
mullahs' fear of being overthrown by the Iranian people and
resistance. Why in all their international interactions, the mullahs
demand the exertion of pressure on the resistance movement? Why
during discussions on the nuclear issue and in return for binding
international commitments, they set the condition that Europe
blacklist the resistance? Why did they openly call for guarantees
that would prevent the regime's overthrow? Are all of these not
indicative of the mullahs' paranoia over the third option?
The resistance movement has deeps roots in society. As the core of
this resistance, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI)
has been fighting for freedom against the dictatorships of the Shah
and Khomeini for 40 years. The PMOI's extensive network across Iran
organizes and gives direction to social protests, provides the
movement with financial assistance and intelligence and reveals
Tehran's most clandestine nuclear, missile and terrorist projects.
With a democratic and tolerant vision of Islam, the PMOI is the
antithesis to fundamentalism. It has exposed and isolated the
violent and backward interpretation of Islam by the fundamentalists.
The PMOI message is that Iran's mullahs do not represent Islam. They
are Islam's enemy.
The PMOI is the most serious buffer against the mullahs'
fundamentalism and terrorism. It is a major barrier against Tehran's
strategy to devour Iraq. Recognizing this reality, half-a-million
Iraqis issued a statement earlier this year, demanding the continued
presence of the PMOI in Iraq. Recently, more than 200,000 Iraqi
singed a declaration, condemning the EU-troika's deal with Tehran
against the PMOI as countering the interests of the people of Iran
The National Council of Resistance of Iran, the resistance's
parliament, is a coalition of democratic forces that seek a republic
based on the separation of Church and State. Half its members are
women. With the membership of religious and ethnic minorities as
well as different political tendencies, the NCRI represents a
majority of the Iranian nation and is the guarantee for Iran's unity
after the toppling of the mullahs and the peaceful transfer of
We have called for free elections under the United Nations auspices
repeatedly. The mullahs, however, would never accept that. For us,
democracy is not merely a political program, but an ideal for which
120,000 members of the resistance, including six members of my
family have sacrificed their lives. The NCRI has committed itself to
organize free elections for a constituent assembly within six months
of regime change and handover the affairs to the people's elected
representatives so that society's deep wounds that were caused by
eighty years of dictatorship are healed.
By adhering to international covenants, interest in peace and
coexistence, we want a peaceful Iran, free from all weapons of mass
destruction. We want to rebuild Iran, which the mullahs have ruined,
through the people's participation, the return of our experts and
friendship with the rest of the world.
The biggest obstacle to this change is the policy pursued by Western
governments. The West is compromising with Tehran at the expense of
the Iranian people and Resistance. The most important, illegitimate
and damaging action was accepting the mullahs' demand to put the
terrorist tag on the Iranian Resistance. This label has no real
basis or legal credibility. It has been used by the United States
and Europe to engage in deals with the mullahs. After Khatami took
office, US officials said that the terror tag was a goodwill gesture
to the mullahs' new president. A senior State Department official
said the designation was in response to the demand by the Iranian
regime and part of the policy of rapprochement with the Iranian
Another shameful acknowledgement was the official document signed by
the EU troika. First published by Agence France Presse, the document
promised that if the mullahs would accept to limit their nuclear
program, the EU would keep the PMOI in the terrorist list. According
to the agreement, the EU-troika committed themselves to fight
against PMOI activities and provide security assistance to the
regime. The scandalous raid by 1,300 French policemen on the office
of the NCRI in France represents a dark page in post-war Europe. In
other countries, offices of the Iranian Resistance have been
attacked in return for trade concessions from Tehran. In all cases,
judicial authorities declared that there was no basis to the
allegations linking the PMOI to terrorism or any criminal activity.
The judiciaries in Germany, Italy and Britain closed the files on
this issue. A French court, which overturned the order to expel
political refugees affiliated to the PMOI, wrote that the PMOI does
not pose a threat to France.
A month ago, 500 distinguished jurists from across the world
presented nine legal briefs at a conference in Paris, underscoring
that the terror label on the PMOI violated 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 tag is illegal. A large
number of MEPs, majorities in the parliaments of Italy, Britain,
Belgium and Luxembourg as well as more than 1,000 parliamentarians
elsewhere in Europe and a majority in the U.S. Congress stated
repeatedly that the PMOI is a legitimate resistance movement and
should be removed from the terrorist list.
The coalition forces, including 10 EU members, acknowledged after a
16-month investigation that the PMOI personnel were under Fourth
Geneva Convention protections and there was no basis to charge any
of its members. If not even a single member of the PMOI is
terrorist, what is the justification for the continuation of this
The terror tag against the Iranian Resistance is tantamount to
ignoring the right of a nation to bring about change in Iran. This
label ignores that third option.
The Munich Pact turned a blind eye to Hitler's aggression against
Eastern Europe. Today, a nation's right to freedom is being denied.
We seek neither the West's money nor weapons. We want them to remain
neutral between the Iranian people and resistance on one hand and
the ruling regime on the other.
The terror tag is a decree that sanctions the suppression of a
nation in the hands of a regime, which fifty-one United Nations
resolutions have condemned for human rights abuse.
The removal of the unjust terror tag on the PMOI is a legitimate
demand of the Iranian people. Based on my experience with the people
of France, I am convinced that a solid majority in Europe also
support this demand.
Let me address in summary form what I have already said to the
distinguished members here and to the EU summit that will convene in
The existence of the clerical regime is entwined with suppression
and the export of terrorism and fundamentalism. It cannot retreat
from any of them.
By installing a puppet Islamic regime in Iraq, the mullahs seek to
play the role of the hegemon in the Islamic world.
The mullahs are secretly continuing their nuclear weapons project
in breach of their commitments.
The third option, namely bringing an end to this tyranny by the
Iranian people and resistance is within reach. The policy of
appeasement emboldens the clerical regime to continue its policies,
and would ultimately impose a war on Western countries.
The terror label against the PMOI lacks legal credibility and was
part of a deal with the mullahs. It is a political obstacle to
change in Iran by the Iranian people and resistance. Removing this
unjust label is necessary for change and the creation of democratic
The clerical regime is an impediment to the realization of peace
and tranquility in the region and especially in Iraq. A regime
change in Iran and the establishment of freedom and popular
sovereignty in that country is key to peace, stability and
coexistence in the Middle East region and the end to violence and
vengeance in the birth place of Moses, Jesus and Mohammad.
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. I hope that by correcting its policy,
Europe would pave the way for this cooperation with tomorrow's Iran
and guarantee the interests of the European people in their
confrontation with fundamentalism.
In expressing my gratitude for your courageous positions in defense
of democracy in Iran, I ask that you employ all means available to
you for a proper European policy toward Iran and the removal of the
terrorist label against the Iranian people's legitimate resistance.
The Iranian people would never forget your efforts in defense of
human rights and democracy.
Mr. Stevenson then introduced Rt. Hon. The Lord Slynn of Hadley as
one of the leading experts in international law and a former judge
in the European Court of Justice. The following is the excerpt of
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 on one question. A
question of major importance to the people at Ashraf (the camp
belonging to the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran in Iraq).
And that question is the legal status of the members of the People's
Mojahedin Organization of Iran in Iraq.
This question is in two parts. In the first place, what is the
status of the individuals. And that involves looking at the various
Geneva conventions that you as politicians know only too well. The
first suggestion was that perhaps the members of the Mojahedin in
Ashraf were combatants who had been involved in the conflict in
Iraq. We came to the very firm view that they were not combatants
with rights and duties under the appropriate Geneva Conventions.
They did not belong to an armed force on either side. They did not
belong to an irregular force attached to either side. So, they were
not combatants. And, therefore, if they were detained in their camp,
they were not to be treated and did not have to be treated as
prisoners of war. It was quite plain to Prof. de Cara and to me that
on the other hand equally that the people in Ashraf had rights to be
protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, with one or
two limited exceptions, which I will deal with. They were protected
under the Fourth Geneva Convention and we advised to that effect.
The second question, which was pretty obvious. What was the position
of the coalition once it occupied Iraq. Did that affect the rights
as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention? We find it
important to stress that the sovereignty of Iraq continued despite
occupation. So, the laws of Iraq continued. And obligations of Iraq
continued, both under the Geneva Convention and under the Hague
Regulation. So, the members of the Mojahedin and their colleagues
were entitled to continue their rights under the Geneva Convention
during the occupation: rights as individuals, rights to property,
rights not to be deported from Iraq by virtue of 49/78 of
Moreover, it was clear since Iraq had recognized their status in
Iraq, at Camp Ashraf and the other camps, as refugees, not as
refugees under the 1951 refugee convention, but under Iraq's
domestic legislation. So under this too, as political refugees they
had a right under international law not to be sent back to their own
territories. And these were rights, which had to be respected. But
even more important perhaps as a matter of day-to-day practical
reality, it was quite clear that people in the Camp, member of the
People's Mojahedin, had been recognized as a resistance movement of
a political nature. And as such, they had rights under the
international law. Perhaps, they had rights also as insurgents
fighting against the government of another state. So, it was very
important that these rights as members of a political resistance
movement should be protected when the coalition took over. It was
quite plain that for a number of years they had been recognized 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 possibility of
counter argument that for them to be sent back to Iran either by
either the coalition or by Iraqi government would be a violation of
customary international law and a grave breach of international
human rights law. And I must say that our arguments put to the
coalition on this were listened to very carefully and with
We have to balance the right to wage resistance in the interest of
democracy. Protecting the liberty and dignity of the people of a
particular country have to be taken care of. Although terrorism is
obviously not to be tolerated, we have to ensure that rights to
achieve democracy, to assist in the achievement of democracy are not
A final question, to which Mrs. Rajavi has herself referred is a
question of this new agreement that as long as there is no further
nuclear activity, the Mojahedin will remain on the proscribed list.
This is a matter for you as parliamentarians, as politicians, to
decide whether morally, legally and in international law this is the
right course to take. It might be said that you are either a
terrorist or you are not a terrorist. You don't become a terrorist
only if something else is done or not done. You don't cease to be
terrorist only if something else is done or not done. It is a
matter, as Mrs. Rajavi has stressed, of considerable importance aid
for you as parliamentarians.
In his closing remarks Mr. Stevenson said: We recently had Deputy
Foreign Minister of Iran who came to see the Foreign Affairs
Committee in this house and he ludicrously told us that the new
missile system being developed with the act of help of North Korea
and with the ability to deliver a pay load at a total of 2,500 km.
from its firing range, was simply a weapon for defensive necessities
against Iran's immediate neighbours.
I think anyone will understand that the threat now being posed by
Iran which is almost certainly continuing with its nuclear
enrichment program, despite their promises. The fact that they are
now developing a third generation missile delivery system that can
travel even further than 2,500 km.
The threat not only to the complete destabilization of that region,
the threat is now to us, to the rest of the world. That is why it is
so vitally important that we support the incredible and courageous
work of Mrs. Rajavi and the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran.
It is only through them that this threat can be removed and it is
only 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 respect for human rights. And it is through
the leadership of Mrs. Rajavi that we can achieve this objective.
So for that reason, Mrs. Rajavi, I am really, on behalf of all of
our colleagues very grateful for you coming today for addressing
this meeting in the European Parliament.
I hope we may welcoming you back here as the president of Iran in
a very near future indeed.
If you wish to join Friends of a Free Iran or like to express your
support to the work of FFI please e-mail us on