As 3,400 Iranian dissidents in Iraq seek to relocate to a new country, their lives remain in the balance. Iranian activists across the world have fought to ensure their safety and protection, and to challenge their designation as terrorists. The fate of the residents of Camp Ashraf is a unique and complex issue worthy of examination. For those affected by the crisis, it is important that the issue not only get coverage, but fair and objective treatment. Josh Rogin’s piece in Foreign Policy titled “Are the MEK’s U.S. Friends its Worst Enemies?”, provides none of these things. Not only does the piece read like a pop-gossip blog, with hyperboles, anonymous sources, and factual inaccuracies, but it also does a disservice to any hopes of resolving the issue.
Oddly enough, this is not the first time that the Stat Department and a media outlet have colluded to undercut the MEK and Camp Ashraf. Just last year, the New York Times embedded reporter Tim Arango with a State Department negotiating team sent to Camp Ashraf. In a bizarre departure from standard practice, Arango did not disclose his status as a journalist to residents of the Camp, and focused his coverage solely on the sentiments of the State Department team. An editor at the Times later apologized for this departure from journalistic norms, stating; “What’s unusual is that the story is so heavily weighted with the ambassador’s words and point of view. The only direct quote from someone with the MEK is five words from an unidentified person claiming General Clark and other American speakers were not “doing it for the money.”
Rogin’s article appears to mimic the same deviations, focusing chiefly on an interview with an anonymous source from the State Department, while serving as a platform for an outlandish rant against the MEK. Rogin gives no context to the discussion, omits facts, and mischaracterizes relevant evidence. The piece should strike any serious Foreign Policy reader as oddly one sided and conclusory in its nature.
For one thing, Rogin’s only source for information is anonymous hearsay, ignoring journalistic diligence to find facts, hear both sides, and investigate claims. He also disregards the very real concerns that Iranian-Americans share for the situation in Camp Ashraf after dozens of residents were killed in April 2011. In ignoring the situation faced by the residents in Ashraf, and the danger they face, Rogin trivializes the issue and sheds little light on those who are the most affected by the situation: the residents of Ashraf.
The article continuously references the fact that those who advocate for the MEK are paid, as if paid advocacy in politics was something uncommon. Bill ClintonBill Clinton reportedly earned upwards of 75 million in speaking fees since 2001. Many retired officials use such occasions to remain in the public eye and generate income for themselves. This practice is widespread and generally deemed uncontroversial. Yet, in this instance it is treated as some sort of scheme that smacks of corruption and unlawfulness.
The question then becomes whether it is somehow unlawful for these speakers to receive fees to call for a change in policy in regards to the MEK. Under the First Amendment, individuals are allowed to advocate for the removal an organization from the FTO. Any attempt to limit their ability to exercise this right would be an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment. Over the years, the MEK has set a legal precedent in the EU and UK as the only organization in world to have its name removed from FTO lists through purely legal means. Their cases against the State Department continue to push the legal envelope for improved due process in the FTO enlistment process.
Underneath the skewed facts and the biased tone of the piece are more troubling undertones, that when Iranian-Americans use their money to advocate for policy changes, they must be engaged in a dubious activity. Reading between the lines, one gets the sense that the State Department does not consider the MEK or Iranian-Americans as a partner in the resolution of this humanitarian situation, but as a thorn in their side.
For Iranian-Americans, this campaign is about more than just money. Certainly over the last 30 years many have dedicated their lives and given more than just financial contributions in the hopes of a free Iran. It is only natural that they would turn to former officials who are familiar with the issue, many having seen the classified evidence, to call for the de-listing of the MEK. It goes without saying that someone who has lost a daughter, brother, or father to the Iranian regime would be more than willing to make monetary sacrifices for a cause they believe in.
Putting aside the prejudice towards Iranian-Americans in the piece, the unnamed source makes several remarks which are not only divisive but can be characterized as character assassination. “The not-too-stable Queen [Rajavi] hired a bunch of court flatterers to tell her that she’s great…” Such statements appear not only unprofessional, but have no value in a political or even informative context. If the State Department was intent on obtaining cooperation from the MEK, what purpose do these statements serve?
Without a hint of irony, the anonymous source states in regards to the MEK “Whoever advised them has done actual demonstrable damage to a possible humanitarian solution. They’re not helping. It’s remarkable”. No reference is made about the State Departments abysmal track record of ensuring protection for the Camp Residents, despite giving them status as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convection.
Strangely absent from the piece is the 2010 decision by the US Court of Appeals, ruling that the MEK was denied due process in its enlistment, and giving the State Department six months to review the designation. Now, almost two years later the State Department has continued to delay the review, without providing any credible evidence for the enlistment. On March 5, 2012, after reviewing the US government’s petition in response to the MEK’s motion for expedited consideration, the US Court of Appeals issued a ruling which ordered the State Department to respond to the petition on or before March 26, 2012. It appears that ignoring court orders while playing politics with the lives of refugees does not qualify as “demonstrable damage to a possible humanitarian situation.”
Missing from Rogin’s piece are the stories of thousands of Iranian-Americans who have fought for accountability and due process, not only for themselves but also the residents of Camp Ashraf. On a personal note, my own family suffered a tragedy when my adopted sister, whom my parents raised as their own daughter in the United States, was killed in the April raid in Camp Ashraf. Leading up to the attack my family and I had repeatedly expressed our concerns for the safety of the residents of the Camp to the State Department. All we have received up to this point are empty words and broken promises. The insulting statements by the unnamed State Department official only add insult to injury for the families of Ashraf residents.
The push to de-list the MEK is not only about the future of Iran, but also the lives of 3,400 refugees. For those of us desperate to protect the lives in Ashraf, Rogin and his article serve as a justification for further mistreatment of Camp residents. As Congressmen Brad Sherman put it, “The Iraqi ambassador’s office has said the blood is not on the hands of the Iraqi government but is at least partially on the hands of the State department because the MEK is listed as a terrorist group and, accordingly, Iraq doesn’t feel that it has to respect the human rights of those in the camp.”