Examination of Witnesses (Questions 139
- 159)
WEDNESDAY 4 JULY 2007
LORD ARCHER
OF SANDWELL
QC
Q139 Chairman: Good afternoon, everybody.
Could I ask all members of the public to switch off their mobile
phones, or take the batteries out?
Lord Archer, Peter, welcome. As you know, we
are conducting the inquiry into Iran. You sent us a submission,
and as a result we decided to ask you to come along to give oral
evidence. Can I begin by asking you for your assessment of the
current situation with regard to the Government's listing of the
People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran as a terrorist organisation,
and how you see the current position with regard to that, both
in the UK and in the European Union?
Lord Archer: I would be happy
to answer that question. In fact I would be delighted. I am slightly
troubled, but I am entirely in your hands. The matter is sub judice
at the moment. It is the subject of an appeal. But if you think
it right for me to continue, I should be happy to do so.
Q140 Chairman: As far as you are
aware, has the European Commission explained why the PMOI continues
to be listed as a terrorist organisation?
Lord Archer: I see. There are
two separate proscriptions. There is the one in Europe and there
is the one under the Terrorism Act in this country. In relation
to the European one, the most up-to-date position that I have
come across is that the Commission has put in a statement of the
reasons for the proscription, somewhat belatedly because it had
been criticised by the Court for not having informed the Court
of those reasons. If I remember correctly, the last incident that
it mentioned was prior to 2001. As far as I could see, there was
no suggestion that there had been any kind of activity that could
be classified as terrorism after that date. I do not think that
there has been anything further than that.
I believe that the Council of Ministers has
passed a resolution, but I do not think that there have been any
further proceedings. The position was that the court declared
the 2005 proscription to be unlawful. The Council of Ministers
then relied on the 2006 proscription, but there was simply no
difference between them. There is not the slightest reason to
think that if the 2006 proscription had been before the Court,
there would have been any difference in its deliberations. So
that is the position at the moment, I think.
Q141 Chairman: That refers to the
decision of the Council of Ministers when it met just a few days
ago, is that correct? You are talking about the meeting on 28
June?
Lord Archer: I am not sure what
emerged from that meeting that changes things. I believe that
the Council basically confirmed where it stood.
Q142 Chairman: Are you saying that,
as far as you are aware, there is no new information and this
decision is simply based upon the previous position?
Lord Archer: I have not seen any
new information, certainly not about the merits of the case.
Q143 Chairman: We now have a new
ministerial team in the Foreign Office. It is substantially a
new team—one Foreign Office official is still in the same
position as before. Essentially, there is a completely new Foreign
Office team. Is it your expectation or hope that there will be
any change in the British Government's position with regard to
this issue?
Lord Archer: I am always reluctant
to guess on these matters, because normally I guess wrongly, but,
of course, the proscription is a matter for the Home Office. What
is so surprising in this case is that a Home Office decision was
supported by evidence that was confined to evidence from a Foreign
Office Minister. You may think that that supports precisely what
some other people were saying, namely that this decision was not
reached on the merits of whether the organisation's members were
terrorists or not, but in fact it related to whether it was a
diplomatic advantage to proscribe them.
Q144 Chairman: The then Foreign Secretary,
Jack Straw, who introduced the proscription when he was Home Secretary,
said in 2003 that the "MEK is a terrorist organisation and
one which I banned as Home Secretary two and a half years ago".
So clearly it was not just a Home Office decision, and the same
Minister was clearly involved.
Lord Archer: Indeed, it was the
same Minister, yes.
Q145 Andrew Mackinlay: We have just
heard that Jack Straw told this Committee that he banned this
organisation two and a half years before 2003. From your understanding,
there has never been any suggestion either by the European Union
or the United Kingdom Government that there has ever been any
terrorist or military activity by the organisation since 2001.
Is that correct?
Lord Archer: Yes, I have not heard
any suggestion of such activity.
Q146 Andrew Mackinlay: And so far
as you are aware, was there not—please help me on this matter—some
public declaration, or manifestation, of the repudiation of arms
by the PMOI?
Lord Archer: Yes. In 2001, the
PMOI formally renounced violence of any kind. Prior to that time,
it was true that it had had exchanges of fire with Government
troops, because it was attacking police stations where it thought
that people were being tortured; I believe that that was the case.
Such attacks were not on any large scale, but were carried out
on one or two occasions. I think that two Ministers were killed,
both of whom were notorious torturers. That was what the PMOI
practised before 2001. It was never at any time targeting civilians.
Q147 Chairman: Is it not the case
that, at one point, the PMOI was responsible for blowing up members
of the Iranian Parliament and also that it was associated with
Saddam Hussein's activities against the Kurds in Iraq?
Lord Archer: The answer to both
those questions is no. As I said before, I believe that many years
ago, in the early days of the "revolution", the PMOI
assassinated two particular people, both of whom were officials
and notorious torturers. I am not aware of the PMOI ever blowing
up anyone, including members of the Iranian Parliament. So far
as being associated with Saddam Hussein, no, the PMOI was not;
it had a presence in Iraq, because it could not stay in Iran.
So it was over the border in Iraq, but it was not in any way concerned
with the regime in Iraq. The PMOI members were tolerated, possibly
because the Iraqi regime thought that it would be getting at Iran
in that way.
Q148 Chairman: May I interrupt you
on that point? Is it not a fact that they were in Paris, and that
they were expelled from France and went to Baghdad?
Lord Archer: That is not quite
the case either. It is true that they had a presence in Paris,
and the French Government proscribed them in the same way as the
British Government. Subsequently, of course, the French courts
held that that was unlawful, and the proscription was cancelled.
However, some of them did go, not to Baghdad but to Camp Ashraf.
They all had a presence there. There was no
secret about it; it was well known. They said at the outset of
hostilities that they would not participate in the hostilities
in any way, and there is not the slightest reason to believe that
they ever did. They did not even retaliate when they were attacked
by coalition forces. Subsequently, the American authorities investigated
them at great length; they said that they were quite satisfied
that there was no element of terrorism and that they should be
on a list of protected persons.
Q149 Chairman: Why were the Iraqi
Kurds in particular so hostile to them, feeling that they were
on Saddam's side?
Lord Archer: I never discovered
that.
Q150 Chairman: It is true, is it
not?
Lord Archer: I have heard it said.
How far it is true, I do not know. I am not in a position to say.
But I have heard it said that at least some Kurds believed that
they were on the side of Saddam. Whether that is because they
were confused with the Iranian revolutionary guards, who were
on the side of the Government and not on the side of the National
Council of Resistance, I do not know. I do not know what the reasoning
behind that view was.
Q151 Andrew Mackinlay: It is probably
a matter for debate afterwards, but to use a Northern Ireland
phrase, there was a repudiation, was there not, in 2001? You are
not aware of any evidence of that being abrogated by any individual
or group. Indeed, the United Kingdom Government have not offered
any evidence, have they?
Lord Archer: That is absolutely
right.
Q152 Andrew Mackinlay: And have the
UK Government at any stage given you or the representative body,
the National Council of Resistance, any evidence of why proscription
should be continued?
Lord Archer: No, they have not.
Q153 Andrew Mackinlay: The rules
of natural justice dictate, do they not, that if you are accused
of something you are entitled to disclosure? I am not talking
about the courts but about the political position. One is entitled
to respond to or repudiate an accusation, but nothing has been
given to you, has it?
Lord Archer: No. In fairness,
I have to say that we are talking about intelligence from sources
that cannot easily be disclosed as it would endanger them. That
is the reason that the Government gave, and I respect it. However,
we have no indication of what is motivating the Government to
take the view that they do.
Q154 Andrew Mackinlay: I understand
that Camp Ashraf—also called Ashraf city—is a camp
of those people that is patrolled, guarded and policed by the
United States.
Lord Archer: Now it is, yes.
Q155 Andrew Mackinlay: It is. And
the United States has diligently maintained that those people
have protected persons status. Can you help me on that? What is
their status?
Lord Archer: Protected persons
status means that they cannot be extradited back to Iran. The
Iranian Government are, of course, desperate to get them back,
and we know what would happen if they went back. Having protected
persons status under the Geneva convention certainly entails that
they are not terrorists in any way. They could not be awarded
that status, if they were terrorists.
Q156 Andrew Mackinlay: I am told
that the United States military command authorised, allowed or
permitted them to have bank accounts and so on.
Lord Archer: Certainly. They were
investigated—I think for 16 months, if my memory is right—by
the United States authorities, who said that they were completely
satisfied.
Q157 Andrew Mackinlay: My final question
is this. It has been suggested to us, perhaps in your submission,
that there has been a trade-off. You mentioned it a few moments
ago. What do you know about it? Is it, "We'll keep them proscribed
provided you play ball on nuclear."?
Lord Archer: Again, I must take
care not to stray into territory that is sub judice. However,
under the Terrorism Act the Secretary of State can include someone
in the schedule if he is satisfied, in brief, that they are committing
acts of terrorism. If he is satisfied about that, then he would
be entitled to take extraneous matters into account, such as whether
it assisted our diplomatic relations with Iran, or whether the
Iranians would regard that as a reason for doing the things that
we are asking them to do. What has been said by the Government—I
certainly have not said the Home Office—via the evidence
from the Foreign Office, is that the Secretary of State was satisfied
of that. The evidence includes a long list of things that he took
into account, however, all of which were deals with the Iranian
Government.
Q158 Chairman: What would happen
to the people in Camp Ashraf if the Americans ceased to protect
them? Do you think that they would be received warmly by the Iraqi
people, or would they effectively be driven out of Iraq?
Lord Archer: We do not know who
the Iraqi people are, because there are obviously many different
groups. There are the Shi'a and the Sunni. I have very little
doubt there are groups in Iraq who would like to attack the people
in Camp Ashraf, but there are others who regard them as the one
force that could ensure that the two sides in Iraq unite. The
trouble is that, if the Americans were to withdraw, there would
be a very real attempt by elements loyal to Iran to get them back
into Iran. Knowing what happens to people who criticise the Government
in Iran makes that a very worrying aspect.
Q159 Chairman: What is the attitude
of the Iraqi Government to Camp Ashraf?
Lord Archer: They tolerate it,
and there is no hostility of any kind, as far as I know. I am
reminded that a short time ago, 5.2 million Iraqis signed a petition
saying that the people of the PMOI are the people who can give
a hope of future peace in Iraq and hasten the withdrawal of the
Americans, whom they did not particularly want to have there.
Chairman: Thank you.
| 
