| December 17, 2010
At one point in time, we talked about and we put the MEK on the terrorist list because we thought it might enhance and improve the dialogue, change the dialogue… and I think history concludes so far in the past several years since we put that organization, which by the way disarmed itself, consolidated itself and has been a source of some very important intelligence for this country’s use and the rest of the world’s knowledge. If the goal was to improve engagement and to solicit a different response from the Iranian government, that hasn’t worked out very well either…What happens if they become even further emboldened by having nuclear capability? One, we know what it says about Iran—if you think that part of the world is unstable now, we can only imagine what the consequences will be then…Think about that, ten years ago we were worried and trying to figure out how we could make sure that didn't’t happen and now we have some pundits and some analysts in the international community saying, it’s almost a fait- accompli, “now what are we going to do?” Let’s just pause for a moment and think what that means to the rest of the world vis-a-vis America. What does it say about our ability to influence geopolitical events? What does it say about how our allies and friends in that region look to us, and our ability to affect change that affects their lives and the security of that particular region…? So how do we go forward? What do we do next? I think the Attorney General very clearly identified probably one of the most significant things we can do and that is delist as the UK has done, and the European Union has done, MEK. They did consolidate. They did disarm. They were a source of considerable intelligence for us, and if we are to look for peaceful means of encouraging a regime change, it seems to me that one of the first and most significant steps we could take, I guess it’s under review right now by the State Department, but as you well know in January of this year I think the DC Circuit Court of Appeals said that, based on the information you presented in this court right now…the court said preliminarily, the information that you’ve at least shared with us in court today doesn't’t warrant them being listed as a terrorist organization. I think the consequences of that particular decision, the State Department as I understand it and perhaps others on this panel can give us a more enlightened and more recent point of view that they’re actually honestly and actively considering that outcome. What’s the benefit of that outcome? First of all it’s the strongest possible signal that our approach toward Iran is changing. It’s saying that 30 years of peaceful engagement hasn’t been effective, and I think everybody around the world knows that…I’ve always thought that, if America was considered to be a product that we look to sell around the world then our brand is based on our value system… We are our strongest allies; we’re also our strongest critics. We know what we believe in and when we seem to deviate...we take a close look at ourselves in the mirror and ask ourselves “What are we doing?” Well, part of that American brand I think is being consistent with our values overseas as well. And when we see a repressive theocracy, day in and day out, imprisoning, torturing, executing men, women, entire families because they’ve been brave enough, courageous enough to stand in opposition to the theocracy. In their hearts, not necessarily looking to the institutions of government like America but looking to the value system of freedom and liberty, speech, assembly, peaceful opposition. Delist the People’s Mujahedin of Iran. It’s not a terrorist organization. And after that… with the hope of convincing the rest of the world that the loyal opposition, those pro-democracy warriors, individuals and families in Iran can at least look to the United States not with casual and occasional criticism of the Iranian government and how it treats its citizens, but a sustained clamor for change, aggressive diplomatic efforts to at least pull some of our friends and allies into the chorus of opposition to this regime. Time is running out. There aren’t too many options left. |
|
December 17, 2010 
Our policy goals in this country really must be a reflection of our values. It must be consistent and it must be fundamental to how we build a policy process. It struck me, when you go back and look at the current, when we heard Tom Ridge and others talk about the sanctions regime, we can debate its efficacy we can debate its impact, but the statement of the goal right now as we sit here today in Washington the goal of the sanctions, which have not been yet successful, is to get the regime to the bargaining table. Is that really all? To describe that is as humble and modest in terms of an objective, that’ s not enough. So, when you look at all the other things we’ve talked about just so far this morning that the MEK is still listed as an FTO all of that stems from “what are you trying to achieve.” If you’re not clear, and you’ re not ambitious, and your goals don’t represent your values, you are doomed to failure. .. The FTO designations, as you can imagine during my time in the government (I was in the Justice Department for many years and then in the White House), monitoring the FTO process, the Foreign Terrorist Organizations designation process, working with the State Department was among my responsibilities. I must tell you that having traveled throughout the Middle East and around the world, talking to our allies, the FTO designation process (we should just be honest) is disrespected by our allies. It is ineffective. It is corrupted by politics, and I don’t mean, “corrupted” in the criminal sense, but it has been pervaded by political debate, which is part and parcel of a foreign policy discussion when you’re setting foreign policy goals. The fact that we permit domestic politics in foreign policy concerns to come into what is supposed to be an objective process, that is the designation of a foreign terrorist organization, undermines US credibility. .. Not only, having disarmed, and renounced violence and assisted the United States, should the MEK come off the list, the US Congress should abolish the list because I frankly think in many respects because of how it’s operated, it does more to undermine our credibility on these subjects. So, I would both take MEK off the list and I would ask Congress to abolish it… The other thing that I would say and hasn’t been spoken about, again I’m sensitive to this because of my responsibilities in the White House is, I frankly think, as part of the de listing process one of the things that would enable or open the potential for is permitting MEK leaders who are outside of Iran to get visas and come to the United States. That’s an entirely, again, separate process. It would be treated separately. De listing does not necessarily mean that those leaders would be able to apply and get such a visa that ought to be part of this process. Those people ought to be able to come here and speak about the atrocities, they ought to be able to speak about the human rights abuses and what’s happening inside Iran to those advocates for democracy and freedom. And they ought to be able to be their own advocates. Right now, we are their advocates, but they are entitled to make their own case both before the American Congress and the American people, to raise money, to raise support, and to raise awareness. So, for me, it’s: take them off the list, abolish the list and grant visas to expatriates and exiled MEK leaders so that they can come and make their own case.
|
|
|
