Wie Angelika Beer die iranischen Mullahs unterstützt

Über den Besuch von Angelika Beer und Tobias Pflüger in Teheran im Dezember 2007 hat Wind in the Wires ausführlich berichtet (unter anderem hier, hier und hier). Damals fuhren die beiden linken Spinner zu den Mullahs, um mit den Vertretern des mörderischen Regimes ein gemeinsames Vorgehen der globalen Friedensbewegung abzusprechen. Da die Grünenpolitikerin Beer die Delegation leitete, war es vor allem sie, die sich zum Sprachrohr der Islamischen Republik machte.

Seitdem sie aus Teheran zurückgekehrt ist, hat Frau Beer erst Recht damit angefangen, sich für die Mullahs einzusetzen. Ihre Argumente formulierte sie zum Beispiel am 30. Januar 2008 in einer Debatte über die Situation im Iran im Europäischen Parlament. Bevor Frau Beer sich zu Wort melden konnte, durfte Javier Solanna den Iran als eine "imperfekte Demokratie" bezeichnen, die jedoch besser sei als nichts. Einmal abgesehen davon, dass es von einem unglaublichen Demokratieverständnis der EU spricht, einen Staat, in dem eigentlich alles verboten ist was Spass macht, als Demokratie zu bezeichnen, die Logik Solanas ist grandios: Besser einen Staat, der öffentliche Hinrichtungen veranstaltet, als einen Staat, der noch mehr öffentliche Hinrichtungen veranstaltet. Schlimmer geht es immer.

Neues hatte Angelika Beer im EU-Parlament nicht zu erzählen: Sie wiederholt immer wieder, dass man sich dem Iran gegenüber friedlich zeigen solle, dass Sanktionen lediglich die "Zivilgesellschaft" schaden würden und dass man nur lange genug mit den Mullahs reden brauche, um sie davon zu überzeugen, dass Frau Beer Recht hat:

Wir müssen einen eigenständigen Weg finden, um zu verhandeln, und das kann nur ohne Vorbedingungen stattfinden, und nicht, indem man dem anderen die Waffe auf die Brust setzt.

Eines habe ich ganz klar verstanden von all den Menschen, die wir treffen konnten, und die unsere Unterstützung brauchen: Sanktionen schwächen die Zivilgesellschaft und stärken Ahmadinedschad. Deswegen ist ein „Nur weiter so!“ keine politische Lösung, sondern ein Bleiben in der Sackgasse.

Mit dieser Haltung ist sie auf EU-Linie. Am 31. Januar wurde dann vom Europäischen Parlament eine Resolution über die Situation im Iran verabschiedet. Der Text zählt vor allem diverse Menschenrechtsverstöße der Iraner auf, und hält ganz allgemein fest:

...the situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding the exercise of civil rights and political freedoms has deteriorated in the last two years, notably since the presidential elections of June 2005...

Diese Bemerkung über die Menschenrechtsverstöße wird jedoch durch einen kleinen Nebensatz ergänzt, der direkt an das letzte Zitat anschließt:

...despite the fact that Iran has undertaken to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms under the various international instruments in this field...

Das ist ein großartiger Witz: Teheran als Exporteur von Menschenrechten.

Auch davon, dass man im EU-Parlament die diplomatischen Vorstellungen von Frau Beer teilt, wird in der Resolution kein Hehl gemacht:

...the EU's relations with Iran in recent years have been based on a threefold approach characterised by negotiations on a Trade and Cooperation Agreement, political dialogue and a human rights dialogue, and whereas these three aspects cannot be separated...

Reden, reden, reden... Während im Iran an Raketen gebastelt wird, mit denen Israel zerstört werden soll.

Die Position von Angelika Beer geht jedoch weiter als die der anderen Parlamentarier. Beim Nationalen Widerstandsrat des Irans erfährt man:

The resolution took note of the “European Court of First Instance’s ruling on December 12, 2006,” which annulled the EU terror label against the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), and stated, “The ruling of Britain’s Proscribed Organizations Appeal Commission (POAC) on November 30, 2007, ordered the British Home Secretary to immediately remove the PMOI from the country’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.”

The adoption of the EP resolution concerning the mullahs’ human rights violations, their nuclear program, and the necessity of removing the PMOI from the list of proscribed organizations, faced hostility from the regime’s lobby at the EP.

The lobby had vigorously attempted to prevent the inclusion of articles in the resolution related to the PMOI. They claimed that although the rulings of the European and British courts with regards to the PMOI’s removal from the terror lists are valid, the EP’s adoption of this resolution is tantamount to endorsing regime change in Iran.

Angelika Beer, and some of the supporters of the appeasement policy at the EP had even intended to table a different resolution, through which they could lay the foundation for the appeasement of the mullahs in Tehran, bring international sanctions and the trend of UN Security Council resolutions against the mullahs to an end, and force heavier restrictions on the main opposition movement against the mullahs’ regime.

Und tatsächlich findet man auf den Seiten des Europaparlamentes ein Resolutionsentwurf, der von Frau Beer, Monica Frassoni, Hélène Flautre und Cem Özdemir entworfen wurde. Es würde zu weit führen, hier jeden einzigen Punkt, in denen die beiden Entwürfe voneinander abweichen aufzuzählen, aber um einen Eindruck davon zu vermitteln, welchen Ton Frau Beer, Özdemir und Konsorten anschlagen, hier einige Beispiele:

Unter der Überschrift "On the nuclear issue" heisst es in der Resolution, die letztendlich verabschiedet wurde:

1. Reaffirms that the proliferation risks of the Iranian nuclear programme remain a source of serious concern to the EU and the international community, as expressed very clearly in UNSC Resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), and 1747 (2007); therefore regrets that Iran has still not complied with its international obligations to suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities;

[...]

4. Reiterates its full support for the UNSC resolutions adopted under Article 41, Chapter VII of the UN Charter; endorses the above-mentioned European Council conclusions of 14 December 2007; welcomes the agreement reached at the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the UNSC permanent members and Germany, as well as the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), at their meeting in Berlin on 22 January 2008 on a new draft resolution on Iran which foresees further measures and the fact that the international community maintains a common approach to the issue; 5. Reiterates its position that a solution to the present nuclear escalation is possible and that no military action should be taken into consideration; expresses its support for Dr ElBaradei's efforts to solve all outstanding issues with Iran by March 2008; calls on the United States Administration and all other actors involved to renounce all rhetoric on military options and regime change policies against Iran; 6. Notes the recent findings of the US NIE on the Iranian military and civilian nuclear programme; considers that these findings confirm the EU's policy of a two-track approach to convince Iran diplomatically to comply fully with the IAEA requests to abandon the potential military link to the civilian programme in a credible and controllable way 7. Urges Iran, therefore, to enter, without delay, into a new round of negotiations on the future direction of its nuclear programme and to suspend all enrichment-related activities; calls on the United States, following its diplomatic success in the negotiations with North Korea, to participate directly in negotiations with Iran along with the EU, since the United States is in a position to offer additional security guarantees, notably in a multilateral framework under the auspices of the IAEA in Vienna;

Das Europäische Parlament möchte verhandeln, spricht sich gegen einen Krieg aus, aber wäre mit Sanktionen einverstanden. Dass es sich hierbei um eine Position handelt, die Frau Beer nicht weit genug geht, macht sie in ihrem Resolutionsentwurf deutlich: Sie will keine Sanktionen, möchte den Iranern beim Bau der Kraftwerke unter die Arme greifen und hält es ohnehin für ausgeschlossen, dass der Iran an Atomwaffen arbeitet.

A. whereas in his latest report to the IAEA Board of Governors Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei states that the Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, but that it is not in a position to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran without full implementation of the Additional Protocol,

[...]

D. whereas the US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear intentions and capabilities comes to the conclusion that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that it had not restarted it as of mid-2007; whereas the intelligence agencies further state that 'Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005',

[...]

G. whereas on 6 June 2006 the European Union's High Representative, Javier Solana, presented to Iran, on behalf of China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, a set of far-reaching proposals for a comprehensive agreement, including active support in the building of light-water power reactors in Iran, participation in a uranium-enrichment facility in Russia, legally binding assurances relating to the supply of nuclear material (not dependent on a single foreign supplier), and a substantive cooperation package in the area of less proliferation-sensitive nuclear research and development, including a trade and cooperation agreement with the European Union,

Diese Resolution von Frau Beer wird es gewesen sein, die den Nationalen Widerstansrat des Iran dazu veranlasst hat, eine vierteilige Artikelserie unter dem Titel: "Iran mullah’s pathetic appeasers in the European Parliament" zu veröffentlichen. Drei der vier Artikel drehen sich um Frau Beer und zwei der Texte setzen sich mit ihrer Propagandareise im Dezember letzten Jahres auseinander.

Dort heißt es unter anderem:

When Ms. Beer and her colleagues were busy performing their prearranged meetings with the regime’s Majlis speaker, Foreign Minister, and associations run by the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), the mullahs hanged six prisoners in Bojnourd, Kermanshah, and Shiraz. In an unprecedented measure, the images of four prisoners being hanged in Bojnourd were beamed on Iran’s state-run TV (AFP, December 11, 2007). During the same period, a 20-year-old man, identified as Makvan Alizadeh, was hanged in Kermanshah. He was 13 at the time of committing the crime attributed to him, and moreover, the plaintiffs had withdrawn their complaint against Makvan.

When the hangings were taking place, Ms. Beer, in an interview with the BBC Radio’s Persian service, startled the Iranian community and international human rights figures by claiming that, “the delegation found that because of foreign pressure, the political and social situation in Iran has worsened, and human rights are being violated in this country more than they were in the past.” In another interview with Deutsche Welle radio on December 12, 2007, Ms. Beer made a similar remark, stating, “The UN Security Council sanctions have caused the intensification of the policy of harassing the Iranian people by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”

Such claims serve to justify boundless crimes committed by the mullahs and Ahmadinejad’s government against Iranian women, university students, teachers, workers, and other sectors of society. As part and parcel of pursuing the policy of appeasement under the guise of “supporting civil society” or “peace movement,” such claims arise from a reprehensible and shameful scheme to advance lucrative trade deals with the ruling mullahs in Iran.

Der Nationale Widerstandsrat versucht vor allem deutlich zu machen, wie Angelika Beer sich die Positionen der Mullahs in Teheran zu eigen gemacht hat:

Ms. Angelika Beer and other apologists and lobbyists of the regime at the EP, resort to precisely identical methods for demonizing the Iranian Resistance. For example, when the recent resolution condemning the Iranian regime’s human rights abuses and continuation of uranium enrichment was being debated at the EP, Ms. Beer, in contrast to the opinion of at least 90 percent of the MEPs, intended to propose a resolution, which in addition to justifying the regime’s uranium enrichment efforts, levied accusations and lies against the main opposition to the mullahs. Article 22 of this resolution (as proposed by Ms. Beer) stated,

“22-Takes note of the British court ruling stipulating that the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MKO) organisation has to be removed from the UK list of terrorist organisations; underlines, independently of that fact, that the internal human rights violations and the authoritarian and sect-like nature of the organisation rule out official contacts between the European Parliament and the MKO” (MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION, by Angelika Beer, Monica Frassoni, Hélène Flautre and Cem Özdemir on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group on Iran, 23.1.2008)

In the course of the trip by the parliamentary delegation from the EU parliament despite MOIS's [Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security, Leonard Zelig] attempts to advance its demonizing campaign against the PMOI [People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, Leonard Zelig], some members of the same delegation which had gone to Iran to pursue the appeasement policy toward the regime, upon their return, revealed the mullahs' true intentions of the campaign against its main opposition. Some of the members of the delegation led by Ms. Beer to Iran, later remarked about the visit,

“...We were confronted with an amazing phenomenon in Iran. In meetings with almost everybody, including ministers and Majlis deputies, their first and last words revolved around the PMOI. The personnel guarding us, who were from the MOIS and other security services, demanded that we refrain from doing what they forbid us to do. They took us to associations and individuals who claimed that they are former PMOI members. Such scenes soon made us realize what the true story was. They spoke about the PMOI in a hysteric fashion. One of the delegation members and I, broke away from the guards and visited the city. A taxi driver expressed overwhelming anger at the mullahs, saying that the people hate them. In front of the university campus, students shouted chants against the regime, and the situation was uncontrollable.”

Am interessantesten sind jedoch die Berichte von der Reise, die von der Europäischen Delegation unternommen wurden, die der Nationale Widerstandsrat vor allem im vierten Teil der Serie über die Europäischen Appeaseniks veröffentlicht hat:

One of the deplorable steps taken by Ms. Beer and those accompanying her was to meet with broken down prisoners who have repented and now cooperate with the regime’s torturers and henchmen. State-run websites wrote in this regard, “Ms. Beer met with Messrs. Abrahim Khodabandeh and Jamil Bassam, former members of the political branch of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), who spoke about their experiences with regards to the organization’s activities in Western countries.” Another broken down prisoner with whom Ms. Beer and her delegation spoke was Houra Shalchi. According to state-run websites, Shalchi “talked in detail about the association’s activities. She brought up the subject of the families of PMOI members in camp Ashraf Iraq, and stated that they have no contact with their loved ones. She requested that the MEPs do everything possible to ensure that the families can have safe and private meetings with their loved ones in the PMOI.” Nejat Society, Tehran, December 12, 2007:

“Angelika Beer: We spoke with four former PMOI members who had returned to, and currently live in, Iran

The head of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Affairs Committee’s foreign relations office referred to the meetings of a European parliamentary delegation with the members of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. He expressed gratitude for the constructive views and opinions expressed by the European delegation during the meetings, and said, ‘We will certainly utilize the constructive and excellent views of Ms. Beer and her colleagues for our activities.’ Angelika Beer voiced her satisfaction about her trip as well as her negotiations with Iranian authorities, saying, ‘...During this trip I had the opportunity to speak with four former PMOI members who had returned to, and currently live in, Iran. It is important for us that we cannot invite members of terrorist organizations under whatever pretext to the European Parliament or any other democratic institution, and this is the European parliamentary delegation’s stance” (Aftab website, December 10, 2007).

Even amateur or inexperienced politicians would understand the goal of such phony meetings arranged by the Iranian regime, which try to demonize the main Iranian opposition. But, unfortunately, so as to curry favor with the mullahs in line with the policy of appeasement, Ms. Beer agreed to this deplorable act under the deceitful and fallacious pretext of meeting with “representatives of civic organizations in Iran.” However, through their coverage of these meetings, the Iranian state-run media pointed to the mullahs’ real intentions: “Nejat Society, Tehran, December 12, 2007 EP delegation met with Nejat Society in Iran

On Sunday December 9, 2007, a European parliamentary delegation in Tehran met with members and associates of the Nejat Society in its office in Tehran. The delegation headed by Ms. Angelika Beer, MEP from Germany (and chairwoman of the delegation for relations with Iran at the European Parliament), included 24 MEPs from various parties and countries...

The delegation also expressed its displeasure at Maryam Rajavi’s visit to the European Parliament, and stressed that such individuals, like other cults, never announce their true identity and attempt to deceive others for their own purposes. At the end of the meeting, Ms. Beer thanked Nejat Society for providing her with information about the People’s Mojahedin Organization. Documents and information about the PMOI were handed to each member of the delegation.”

Nejat, Edalat, and Habilian, are groups which have been set up by the mullahs’ Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) to demonize and vilify the PMOI and the Iranian Resistance.

Um ehrlich zu sein fehlen mir die Worte, wenn ich lese, wie eng das Bündnis der deutschen Grünenpolitikerin mit den Mullahs ist. Da ich sprachlos bin, bleibt mir nichts anderes, als das den Nationalen Widerstandsrat zu zitieren, bei dem man registriert hat, wie sehr sich die Zeiten verändert haben: "Indem sie sich mit gebrochenen Gefangenen trafen und sie für politische Ziele instrumentalisierten, haben Frau Beer und ihre Kollegen einen bedauerlichen Schritt unternommen, der mit demokratischen Prinzipien komplett unvereinbar ist. Als die persische Abteilung der BBC, die in der iranischen Gesellschaft wegen ihrer starken Unterstützung für die Mullahs verhasst ist, ein Interview mit einem gebrochenen Gefangenen führte, wurde dies noch vom Europäischen Parlamentverurteilt."


Update:
Mittlerweile hat Frau Beer einen Reisebericht veröffentlicht, den man sich hier anschauen kann. Was sie an Dummheiten über den Iran absondert, erfährt man hier.