Reports:

Secretary-general in an interview with Jeff Klein of Kurdmedia.com

KurdishMedia.com - By Jeff Klein
11 May 2003

Secretary-general Abdullah Hassanzadeh is the leader of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI). The PDKI is the most influential party of eastern (Iranian) Kurdistan. Two former leaders of the PDKI, Dr. Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou and Dr. Sadegh Sharafkandi, were assassinated by Iranian government agents. To the present day, the party has continued its struggle for democracy in Iran and autonomy for Iranian Kurdistan.

On May 11, 2003, Secretary General Hassanzadeh took part in an email interview with KurdishMedia.com reporter Jeff Klein. This interview was conducted in Kurdish with Mr. Hassanzadeh in Kurdistan and Mr. Klein in New York City. It was translated into English by PDKI International Relations staff.

JK: What are your views on the American-led military campaign that led to the removal of the Ba’athist regime in Iraq?

AH: Before the United States and its allies had embarked on the war against Iraq, I said that I preferred the discord between the United States and Iraq to be resolved through peaceful negotiations, as a conflict of the kind could have resulted in many adverse consequences. But unfortunately, my anticipation did not materialize and the war broke out. As expected by everyone, the war has already come to an end with the demise of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath regime, becoming quite clear that my apprehensions were quite pertinent, because the only rake-off of the Iraqi people has been the overthrow of a regime which had been imposed on them over the past 35 years. This is no doubt a precious gain, but if peace and stability, as well as democracy and the rule of law are not promptly established, the people will lose all hope and turn pessimistic. Once again, I hope regional problems and international disputes shall be resolved through peaceful procedures. Such a desire of mine is a part of the political platform of my party as well.

JK: Do you believe that federalism is the ideal system for post-Ba’athist Iraq?

AH: Generally speaking, democracy means dividing out power as well as preventing the concentration of the whole authority in the center of the country or in the hands of a single ethnic group, one party or a social stratum of the community. For a country such as Iraq, the population of which is composed of two major national groups which are Arabs and Kurds, and several different ethnic and religious minorities, a federal system can be a proper one for the management of the country and the peaceful co-existence of all the groups concerned and on the basis of equality of their role and rights. It might seem irrelevant if I put in the fact that we believe the best system for our country (Iran) is a federal one.

JK: Many Kurds call Kerkuk the Heart of Kurdistan or the Jerusalem of Kurdistan. Some Kurdish leaders have called for Kerkuk to be the capital of a Kurdish federal unit

within Iraq. Meanwhile, some Iraqi Turkmen claim that Kerkuk is a Turkmen city and a large number of Arab settlers remain in Kerkuk as a consequence of Saddam Hussein’s Arabization campaign. What are your views on the status of Kerkuk and the future of this historic and strategic city?

AH: An explicit, final answer to such a question should – after a comprehensive analysis by experts – be answered by the residents of the region and the forthcoming government of Iraq. But the information we have about Kerkuk clearly shows that this town has of old been part of Kurdistan, and that it was once the provincial capital of Shahrezoor district. That is why, no one ever doubts its being a city of Kurds. Besides, over the past hundreds of years, Kerkuk has been a town where the Kurds, Arabs, Turkmens, Assyrians and Chaldeans have been living side by side and quite peacefully. Over the past four decades, though, the Iraqi government was bent on changing the ethnic infrastructure of the town and its suburbs. Accordingly, forcibly had the majority of the Kurdish population inhabitants leave the town, on the one hand, and brought thousands of Arab families from other parts of the country settling them there, on the other. But should a proper census be carried out among the original inhabitants of Kirkuk, I believe the Kurds still compose more than 60 percent of its population.

But as the leaders of Iraqi Kurds have time and again declared that Kirkuk is the city of fraternity and peaceful co-existence for all its inhabitants, it will be more appropriate if all those who have been dislodged and settled in Kirkuk return to their original regions, with the Iraqi government compensating the losses incurred on them through changing the places of their lives.

Whether Kirkuk may be chosen as the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan or not, however, it will be up to the authorities of the coming Iraqi government to decide in this connection. In my opinion, whichever of the towns is to be chosen as the center of Kurdistan is to be regarded as a secondary question. As it can be clearly seen just now, the city of Erbil has already been chosen as the capital city of the Regional Government, and as far as I know, it has caused no trouble whatsoever.

JK: How has the successful campaign against the Ba’athist dictatorship in Iraq affected the situation in Iran?

AH: The authorities of the Islamic Regime of Iran have already been badly scared. Before the beginning of the war, they vehemently opposed it not because they were supporters of peace but because they wanted to keep the threat away from themselves, and thus took a stance against the war. I believe the war in Iraq cannot have direct consequences in Iran. The most important matter, though, will be the state of affairs in Iraq after the war and its consequences. If the coalition can bring Iraq back to normality, with freedom and democracy firmly established there, and the Iraqis can exercise a free will on deciding their desired system to govern their homeland, besides if a burgeoning system of economy is established and a prosperous life is guaranteed for them, it will, no doubt, have a great impact – indirectly though – on the will of the Iranian freedom-fighters, with the prestige and credibility of the coalition enhanced accordingly, strengthening the confidence of the people in the promises they have given. It will even force the authorities of the regime to reassess their conduct and have respect for the demands of their compatriots.

JK: Would you support an American diplomatic or military campaign against the present government of Iran?

AH: Expressing assessments concerning a question which has not materialized yet, and which cannot be imagined in the political horizon, cannot be taken as a simple task. In this connection, I have to emphasize once again the principle that my party and I believe and support the peaceful way of resolving the problem, appraising armed resistance as the last choice. We never like to have our homeland attacked militarily by any foreign power, as a result of which our people are very likely to face calamity and disaster. But we will be happy to see the United States and the European countries, as well as the international community in general, have turned their back on the Islamic Regime of Iran and support the liberation movement of the Iranian peoples. We perfectly know that contrary to all their big talk and bombast, the Islamic Republic has so far been able to stand on its feet solely by the military and technical assistance of this or that foreign power.

As far as I can understand, the United States and its allies, as well as other great powers, in defending freedom and democracy in Iran, and in supporting the Iranian peoples’ demands, and in their endeavor to prevent the Islamic Republic from transgressing international laws and regulations, thwarting its seditious activities and “export” of terrorism, and in their efforts to attain their legitimate interests in Iran, etc., they have many other ways and means before them. Besides, they possess numerous “pressure levers” which they can put to use so as to force this regime to abandon its hostile positions. In such a case, there will be no need for a military assault. Nevertheless, the very fact that the governments across the world have eventually come to perfectly know the essence of the Islamic Regime, and that they have put aside all hopes regarding this regime’s ability, is in itself a step forward.

JK: What do you see as the future of your organization? How does the present political climate in Kurdistan and the Middle East affect your party and the Kurds of Iran as a whole?

AH: What is important is the future of our country and its people. And part is to be regarded as an instrument in the serious of the peoples’ aspirations and the advancement of the struggle we have been leading for the freedom of our homeland. In order not to leave your question unanswered, I’d like to say: It is now more than 57 years since PDKI has been fighting for freedom and democracy, and for attaining national rights for the Kurdish people in Iran. With such a past, it is so popular with its people that under any circumstances enjoy full support of this people. Accordingly, we appraise the future of our party very much promising. Besides, we do our at most effort to remain as truthful as ever before.

Concerning the second part of this question, I had better say the Iranian Kurds take great pleasure in the victory of the Iraqi Kurds or those of the other parts of Kurdistan. We hope the Iraqi Kurds, and all Iraq is in general shall be able to establish an all – inclusive authority bereft of all religious and racial differences, securing all the just rights of Iraqi people. In such a situation, the developments in Iraqi Kurdistan will certainly have their good effects on Iranian Kurds as well, because so glad at the victory attained by this section of the Kurdish people, they will certainly accelerate the pace of their endeavor to fulfill their aspirations and those of their Iranian compatriots.

JK: What relationships does the PDKI have with other Kurdish political parties (i.e., KDP, PUK, KADEK, etc.)?

The relation between Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan and every Kurdish political organization in all parts of Kurdistan is quite friendly. As for KDP (Iraq) and PUK, in particular, as a result of the close contact we have had with them over the years, we have amicable relations. Our party has ample respect for the struggle carried on by the patriotic forces of Iraqi Kurdistan, a fight in which KDP (Iraq) and PUK have played the main role. Both these two parties and other patriotic political organizations and parties of Iraqi Kurdistan have regard for the independence adopted by our party in its political stance and decision-making. Consequently, I can say for sure that our multi-lateral relations are quite exceptional.

JK: What do you believe lies ahead for the Kurds of Iraq, Turkey, and Syria?

AH: The Kurds in all parts of Kurdistan –including Iraqi Kurds –have a long way to cover before they can secure their legitimate rights and freedom. But as a result of the relentless decision of the Kurdish people and their constancy to fulfill their aspirations, and as the demands of the Kurds are quite justified and thus acknowledged in all international laws and principles, particularly thanks to the advancements made by the world community along the road of democracy and justice, I appraise the future of the Kurds in all parts of Kurdistan, and that of all the people of the Middle East quite promising particularly now that the governments concerned can no longer obscure the Kurdish cause labeling it as an internal affair before the eyes of the world community, and massacre them without any restraint.

JK: Do you believe that the establishment of an independent Kurdish state in any part of Kurdistan is a possibility within the next fifty years?

Needless to say that if the Kurds demanded independence and the integration of a united Kurdistan, they couldn’t be considered as offenders, because they compose a nation whose population is almost forty million, who have been living in their motherland for thousands of years. That’s why, they cannot be denied the rights which have already been officially granted to nations numbering not more than hundreds of thousands or even tens of thousands. Besides, as far as I know none of the accountable Kurdish political parties have the goal of independence of Kurdistan in their program. Assessing all internal, regional and international factors and parameters, all these parties have come to believe that the Kurdish cause should be resolved in the framework of the states among which Kurdistan has been divided. It is only because of such a fact that none of the genuine political Kurdish organizations has included the slogan of independence in its program.

After such an anticipation, I should say that I am of the opinion that the age of the deprivation of the Kurds of their legitimate rights and every of their equal rights with their other compatriots is nearing its end, and before the first half of the 21st century is reached, the Kurds in all parts of Kurdistan will certainly have attained their national rights, no longer being treated as the second-ranked citizens in the countries they live, sharing in determining the destiny of their homeland, let alone the fact that it is most likely that the social advancement in this region of the world with democratic values ingrained, much greater changes can come about in the relations of the people of region.

JK: Mr. Hassanzadeh, thank you very much for your time. I personally wish you all the best in your campaign for freedom and human rights in Kurdistan and Iran.

AH: I, too, in my turn would like so much to extend to you my most heartfelt gratitude for this interview. Thanks so much for the nice aspirations you have expressed concerning the future of Kurdistan. Wishing co-operation and unanimity among all those who fight for the sacred goal of peace, freedom and democracy.

IRANIAN KURDS AT RISK IN NORTHERN IRAQ AND TURKEY

April 24, 2003

Press Release

UN agency and Turkish government withhold resettlement and protection

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has warehoused more than 5,000 Kurdish Iranian refugees indefinitely in Northern Iraq and Turkey within arm¹s reach of their persecutors, Iranian Refugees¹ Alliance said in a new report released today. UNHCR, the governments of Turkey and Iraq and the international community are failing to protect Iranian Kurdish refugees in these two countries, and should arrange their prompt resettlement to third countries.  At the time of release, post-Saddam Iraq occupied by the US and UK forces is a scene of severe humanitarian crisis and great uncertainty. For the moment and even after regime change, third country resettlement for Iranian refugees is likely to remain their only reliable protection and durable solution.

"Iran-backed assassins are persecuting & killing members of this vulnerable group of refugees in Northern Iraq for years, but when the refugees flee to find safety in Turkey UNHCR denies them support and protection by calling them 'irregular movers' and strikes them from the public record," said Iranian Refugees¹ Alliance¹s director, Deljou Abadi. "UNHCR¹s policies are not just harming these people but also isolating them from international concern."

In recent years, Iranian refugees have paid dearly for UNHCR¹s so-called irregular mover policy. In June 1998 "irregular mover" Karim Tujali was arrested by Turkish police and handed over to the Iranian authorities. After imprisonment and torture Karim Tujali was executed by hanging on January 20, 2002.

The 52-page report, entitled Off the radar screen: UNHCR/Government neglect imperils thousands of Iranian Kurdish refugees in Turkey and Northern Iraq, documents the plight of four thousand people still trapped in Northern Iraq and more than one thousand refugees who have fled from Northern Iraq to Turkey since early 2001.  

The report presents public documents and interviews with Iranian refugees to show how Iranian dissidents forced to shelter in the unstable Kurdish autonomous zone are exposed to the Iranian government¹s escalating campaign of violence and intimidation. UNHCR concedes that these refugees¹ only hope of permanent safety is resettlement, but it has suspended all resettlement since 1999.

Left with no alternative, some refugees have moved to Turkey, where they hope they will finally reach permanent safety via resettlement. They report that UNHCR/Northern Iraq staff encouraged them to move.

Unfortunately, now that they are in Turkey, the refugees¹ position is still precarious. UNHCR/Turkey labels them as "irregular movers" (refugees who leave their country of first asylum where they have obtained "effective protection" for non-compelling reasons) and refuses to assist them. Since February 2002 the agency has also refused to register the refugees. They are therefore condemned to live in a shadow-world, struck from the public record. They receive no financial help  or access to health-care, and are not permitted to work, though some do find employment on the illegal labor market. The Turkish authorities are at best uncooperative. At worst they detain the refugees and return them to Northern Iraq or even Iran.

UNHCR began to resettle Iranian refugees from Northern Iraq after the creation of the autonomous Kurdish zone in 1991, but it was always a grindingly slow and unpredictable process. UNHCR blames the Iraqi government for the 1999 resettlement suspension, saying that it refused to provide exit visas. Iraqi government officials reportedly blame UNHCR for the halt in resettlement.

UNHCR has not revealed the details behind the freeze, or explained why it has failed either to resolve the supposed exit-visa dispute, or get refugees out by other routes. However, the report shows that UNHCR/Turkey is not operating this policy in order to conserve precious and scarce opportunities for resettlement. According to its own statements, UNHCR fails to fill thousands of third government offers for resettlement places every year.

For brief periods (in 1995-1996 and in 2000) UNHCR completely reversed its policy. In 2000, it resettled 550 refugees in a few short months. "Right now, UNHCR is an immovable obstacle in the path of this group of people seeking safety, but for brief periods, when it decided to put refugees¹ interests first, it showed how effective it could be in moving them swiftly out of harm¹s way" said Abadi.

To read the report, Off the radar screen: UNHCR/Government neglect imperils thousands of Iranian Kurdish refugees in Turkey and Northern Iraq,  

please see http://www.irainc.org/text/pub/NIreport2.pdf

U.S. lawmakers put increasing pressures on the clerics in Iran
 

The U.S. Senator, Sam Brownback of Kansas in a news conference on 19 May 2003, introduced a legislation designed to help create a democratic, secular government in Iran, which does not support terrorism and recognizes basic human rights.  The bill would provide funds to expand pro-democracy broadcasting into Iran, increase the amount of influence that Iranian-Americans have in the U.S. Persian radio service, Radio Farda; and provide grants for the translation of materials into Persian. The bill also sets as U.S. policy as supporting an internationally-monitored referendum in Iran to allow the Iranian people to peacefully change their system of government. The bill states that U.S. policy will stand with the people of Iran in their struggle for freedom, rather than engaging the so-called "reformers" who have failed to improve life in Iran for the past seven years. Portions of Brownback's statements follow:

            "As we proceed through the difficult task of establishing an open society in Iraq and fighting terrorist networks around the world, it is crucial that American policymakers understand the role Iran is playing in the region - and why we will never have true stability as long as the Iranian regime is in power," Brownback said. "After all, by the U.S. State Department's own admission, Iran remains one of, if not the largest state-sponsor of terrorism left in the world today.

 "Now is not the time to coddle this terrorist regime. Now is the time to stand firm and support the people of Iran – who are the only ones that can win this important battle. In a country where nearly 70 percent of the people are under the age of 35, the majority of Iranians today have never known a system of government other than the tyranny of the mullahs. They rightly place the blame for their miserable lives on the regime that promised to care for them, but has instead only brought sorrow, domination and torture.

"The experiment that was the Islamic revolution as a form of government has failed. To see this, you need only look into the faces of Iran's youth as they bravely and peacefully demonstrate against a torturous regime. What we are seeing in Iran is truly historic – the people are resisting the regime through non-violent means and they are successfully weakening it from the inside.

"There is too much at stake in the region and in protecting our own shores to shy away from this responsibility. If Iranians are willing to be imprisoned, tortured and killed for merely demanding a better life for themselves and their children, the very least we can do is to support them whole-heartedly," Brownback said.

"This is a crucial time. History will judge us by what we do right now. We do not need to make Iran a military target – that is the whole point of this amendment. The Iranian people want to take their country back – and are in the process of doing so. If we try to engage a dying regime, one that stones its people, that gives death sentences for speaking out, that supports and exports terrorism around the world – we will surely prove ourselves the worst possible hypocrites.

"Sadly, there are those who want America to pursue this course. This information is being used by the regime to dishearten the young protesters. My Iranian-American sources tell me that it is widely reported in Iran that the U.S. has cut a deal with Iran – that we will soon trade and engage with the so-called ‘reformers' who have had nearly seven years – and no reforms to show.

"This fact alone should tell us how desperate the regime is. We must not allow this perception to stand. We must actively support the democracy dissidents in their push for a referendum – for a whole new government. This is not only the right thing to do – the moral thing to do, it is what is best for America's security. Iran is projected to have nuclear weapons by 2005. Iran is possibly the largest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world. We cannot afford to make a deal with people who will not honor it and cannot bring reform.

"What's more, the people of Iran themselves have turned their backs on the reformers. President Khatemi - the leader of the reform movement, won power from the support of these students with a whopping 77 percent of the vote – and his party held 70 percent of the seats in Parliament in 2001 (CRS). But in this year's most recent local elections – held just months ago, Khatemi suffered a severe political blow to the hardliners when voter turnout hit a low of 14 percent. The people stayed home despite being ordered to vote or face jail. Are we really going to stand against such courageous action and tell them they should support these do-nothing reformers?

"There is a Farsi phrase that the Iranian students are shouting at their demonstrations in Tehran – [Iran-Aaa Ahhh Zahhd], it means ‘free Iran.' That goal should be our goal – and this amendment helps take us a step closer to it," Brownback said.

Press Release:

A Statement Released by Central Committee

 on the War in Iraq

The Central Committee of Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan released a communiqué following its 9^th Plenum on 9 April 2002.  In this session the Secretary-general elaborated on the new developments in the region, Iraq in particular.  The Central Committee in this release publicized Party’s position on the new developments in Iraq.

Press Release

The United States of America and its allies’ war against Iraq lasted only three weeks. There remained no signs of central authority in Baghdad when in April 8 a restaurant in Al-Mansour District of Baghdad, thought to be the gathering place of Saddam Hussein and some of the inner circle of the leadership, was heavily bombarded. Besides, as Basra and many other southern cities of Iraq were falling into the hands of the coalition forces, this initial bombardment was regarded as the end of Saddam Hussein’s and his Ba'ath Party’s rule in Iraq. Consequently, in Baghdad and other towns across Iraq, particularly in Kurdistan, people rushed into the streets celebrating this auspicious occasion. Following these circumstances, despite the existence of sporadic resistance across Iraq, most of the cities, the two major cities of Kirkuk and Mosul in particular, surrendered without any resistance. Eventually, with the fall of Tikrit [the birth place of Saddam] on April 14, the war came to an end.

As it is expected in any war, in this war, despite the usage of the most advanced military technology, there were heavy losses of life and property that an exact figure of casualties and damage requires some more time.  However, fortunately, a series of concerns regarding Iraqi army’s missile attacks against Kurdistan and neighboring countries, usage of chemical or weapons of mass destruction and setting fire of the oil fields did not take place. Most importantly, despite the heavy bombardment and extensive missile attacks by the allied forces, the civilian casualties were comparatively low. The only disappointing phenomenons seen was the looting and plunder which swept across Baghdad and most of the towns of Iraq, which in some places turned into personal reprisals and revenge.

Prior to the start of the war and during the days of its continuation, considerable anti-war demonstrations took place in most parts of the world, especially the United States and Great Britain.  However, the coalition forces according to their set agenda, embarked on the war, labeling it “Operation Iraqi Freedom”.  Now that the war has ended with the victory of the Allied forces and the toppling of the central government in Iraq, the world community is anxiously awaiting to see how the champions will behave and how they will remain faithful to their promises.

It was quite clear that the Unites States and its allies started the war against Iraq with the slogan of spreading democracy and eradicating terrorism. In this regard, they had a series of co-operation with the Iraqi opposition, the Kurdish factions in particular, assigning the latter an important role in the front lines.  It is a pleasure that the United States has times declared that after a short period of transition, it will hand over the Iraqi government to its people, and concerning Kurds, it has expressed its full support for the establishment of a federal system in Iraq in the framework of which the Kurds will attain their national rights as well as equal rights of citizenship with all their Iraqi compatriots.

The slogan with which the United States entered the war against Iraq, i.e., “defending freedom and democracy and fight against terrorism”, is fully supported by the majority of the Iraqi opposition forces and all the other dictatorized countries.

Today, the United States, as world’s biggest superpower, talks of changing the political formation of the Middle East - implying putting paid to tyranny and dictatorship and empowering freedom and democracy for the region - brings joy and hope to the hearts of all the oppressed nations and the people under dictatorship and reactionary regimes. We, Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, as a Kurdish Party that represents a significant portion of Iranian Kurds, are pleased with the United States’ support for the just rights of the Kurdish people in Iraq, wholeheartedly expecting to see such backing practically and lawfully materialized.

At the same time, as we all know, Iraq is neither the only country where Kurds live, nor the sole country where human rights are violated and freedom and democracy are trampled. For instance, our country Iran consists of ten million Kurdish people who are deprived of all their national rights and freedoms, and are also deprived of equal citizenship rights with other compatriots. The hostility shown against freedom and democracy by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its efforts directed at “exporting” terrorism abroad are facts needless of explanation, as the Islamic regime of Iran is well-known for the world community.

Accordingly, all freedom-lovers of the Middle East are anxiously awaiting to see the United States fulfill its undertakings concerning handing over Iraq’s destiny to the Iraqis and lending support to the establishment of freedom and democracy in that country. Furthermore, revitalizing the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and supporting relentlessly the struggle staged by democratic nationalist forces to eradicate dictatorship and change the political future of the Middle East.  It will be under such conditions that the United States can secure for itself the friendship and full respect of hundred millions of activists thirsty for freedom and justice in this very important region of the world.  Under such circumstances, it is by no means important how anti-democratic and despotic regimes, like the Islamic Republic of Iran, which are terrified to see the end of their anguish authority, judge the developments in question.  What is important is how the people of the region and the real future owners of the region assess the policy and conducts of the United State or any regional or international power.

In conclusion, we would like to stress on this point that we respect the decision to be taken by Iraqi people regarding determining their own destiny, and we will applaud them and other assisting forces whenever they decide on the system of government they choose to establish.

As regards to Kurdistan, we really take pride in the fact that the Iraqi Kurds and their political organizations have, over the past 12 years, been able to demonstrate a positive and successful model of self-governance before the international community, and played a decisive role in the process of changing Iraq.  Therefore, we sincerely congratulate them, and we hope this new progress is the end of their deprivation and hardship, and together with their other compatriots, they present a successful example of peace, fraternity and brotherhood for the peoples of the neighboring countries.

Wishing all the peoples of the Middle East peace, freedom, democracy, human rights and the right to self-determination

The Central Committee of

Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan

19 April 2003

Appeal to humanitarian organizations to aid the thousands of Iranian Kurdish refugees stationed in Altash camp in Iraq

Close to thirteen thousands of Iranian Kurds who have taking refuge in Iraq for more than 20 years, escaping the regime of Islamic Republic of Iran’s suppression, have faced difficult conditions with the start of the war in Iraq.  These refugees were placed in Altash camp by the Iraqi government near the city of Romadieh in Alanbar province.  These refugees who prior to the start of the recent war in Iraq received a trivial aid from the Iraqi institutions, and in this way lived a deprived life, with the start of the war, and especially with the collapse of the regime and the breakdown of government institutions, they have faced a dreadful condition:  electricity and water are completely cut off; food is either unattainable or is enormously short.  There is no presence of medicine or Doctors.  All these deficiencies plus the hot weather has resulted in various diseases that almost every day takes the lives of several people; furthermore, lack of security must also be added to these horrible conditions, because the armed mobs created following the disintegration of government institutions storm the camps of these refugees almost every day and loot their basic belongings.

It should also be noted that about one thousand of these refugees, tolerating long and severe destitution, have been fortunate enough to reach the Jordanian border.  Unfortunately, so far the Jordanian officials have allowed very few of these desperate refugees to enter their country, and relocate them in camps designated for the possible influx of refugees of the war in Iraq.  The rest are still awaiting the Jordanian permission to enter the country.

Considering the dreadful and miserable conditions that thousands of these remained refugees in Altash camp face, we call upon the international community and humanitarian organizations, particularly the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and Red Cross to reach out to these refugees and relieve them from these inhumane and unbearable conditions.

Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan

The Bureau of International Relations

Paris – 22 April 2003

Public statement:Fear of Imminent execution

22 May 2003

IRAN Mohammad Esmaeelzadeh (m), aged 35, Khaled Faridooni (m),
Omar Feghe-poor (m)

Association of Iranian Political Prisoners(in Exile) is concerned that Mohammad Esmaeelzadeh(m), aged 35, married, having a 7 year-old boy, faces imminent execution, after his death sentence was reportedly upheld by the Supreme Court on 2 March 1999.

In a letter to the Supreme Court, High Council of Judiciary Branch and Judiciary Committee of the Islamic parliament(Majless), Mohammad denied the accusions and demanded his death penalty to be abolished, but on 9 January 2003, he was informed that his sentenced was upheld as it was and he will be executed at any time. He has reportedly been tortured and ill-treated in detention. He was wounded severely at the time he was arrested and his left leg was amputed after he was denied medication and surgery.

Mohammad Esmaeelzadeh, allegedly an activist and supporter of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran, a kurdish armed political group opposed to the Islamic regime of Iran, arrested in Shaherviran nearby city of Mahabad in northwest of Iran, on 8 August 1996.

Branch 1 of the Islamic "Revolutionary" Court, located in Mahabad, sentenced him to death on various charges, including "armed struggle agianst the Islamic regime", "membership of a proscribed Party", " taking members", participating in the killing of three local collaborators, puting road construction machines in fire and other security provisions.
He is currently being held in Mahabad prison.

Khaled Faridooni(m), married, and Omar Feghe-poor(m), married, allegedly activists and supporters of Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran, arrested in the beginning of 2000, in kurdish town of Piranshar in northwest of Iran.

Branch 1 of the Islamic "Revolutionary" Court, located in Mahabad, sentenced them to death on various charges, including "armed struggles against the Islamic regime", "membership of a proscribed party" , "acting against state security" and other security provisions.

Their sentences have been sent to Supreme Court to decide. They are currently being held in Mahabad prison.

We are asking national and international organisations defending human rights, Amnesty International in particular, to put the Islamic regime of Iran under pressure in order to stop the execution of the above-named political prisoners.

Association of Iranian Political prisoners(in Exile)

Press Review:

Tehran is our next target

It's time for Washington to start planning its next regime change, says foreign policy analyst MICHAEL LEDEEN

By MICHAEL LEDEEN

Tuesday, May. 6, 2003

Saddam has fallen but the war against terrorism continues. That was President George W. Bush's message to the world from the deck of the warship USS Abraham Lincoln last week. And he is entirely right. We can forget about the happy dream of being able to destroy the Baathist regime in Iraq, democratize the country and then calmly decide what to do next.

Like Afghanistan, Iraq was just one battle in the war against the terror network and the countries that sustain it. And Saddam Hussein's Iraq was never even the most threatening of those countries. That dubious honour belongs to Iran, the creator of modern Islamic terror in the form of Hezbollah, arguably the world's most lethal terrorist organization. And then there is Syria, which has worked hand in glove with Iran to support Hezbollah.

It is impossible to win the war on terrorism so long as the regimes in Syria and Iran remain in power. So now what? The short answer is regime change.

No one I know wants to wage war on Iran and Syria, but I believe there is now a clear recognition that we must defend ourselves against them. Left undisturbed, they will wage war on us in Iraq and Afghanistan, and mount new attacks on our homeland. Fortunately, a military campaign is unnecessary to achieve a change in regime because the leaderships in Iran and Syria are vulnerable to political attack. In Iran, we have an irresistible card to play: Give the people opposed to that vicious "mullahcracy" that has wrecked their country over the past 23 years support for a peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.

As I wrote in The War Against the Terror Masters, the Iranians and the Syrians long ago concluded that a successful U.S. campaign in Iraq would threaten them both.

The Iranian regime was particularly alarmed because it faces a population that is openly hostile to its rule. Their own public opinion polls show that upward of 70 per cent of their people oppose them, and their internal analyses predicted a domestic social explosion unless living conditions -- including greater freedom -- improved quickly and dramatically. This was decidedly not in the cards, and therefore the Iranians intensified domestic repression in the months leading up to the war in Iraq. Scores of young Iranian dissidents were publicly hanged after summary trials, newspapers and magazines were shut down, radio and television signals from overseas were jammed, and foreign thugs were brought into the country to put down demonstrations (the regime no longer trusted its own security forces for such purposes).

The Syrian authorities obviously had similar concerns, for they orchestrated a cabinet reshuffle in Lebanon, removing the slightest sign of independence, and similarly shut down all voices of criticism.

Having waited more than a year after our victory in Afghanistan before turning to Iraq, we gave these other terror masters time to prepare their strategy. Expecting a long, drawn-out military campaign in Iraq (they dreamed of a second Vietnam), they organized a battle plan appropriate to weak countries facing a more powerful opponent. They planned to combine terrorist attacks with popular uprisings, all the while mobilizing the Iraqi Shiites against the U.S.-led coalition. As Syrian dictator Bashar Assad incautiously proclaimed in an interview shortly after the start of the Iraqi campaign, their model was Lebanon, where the same sort of battle plan had driven out American marines in the 1980s, and the Israelis in the 1990s.

By now, the Iranian/Syrian strategy should be clear to the world, even to those diplomats and policymakers who had considered Syria an ally in the war against terrorism, and had dreamed of coming to some sort of working arrangement with the Iranians. In the war just ended, we saw thousands of terrorists pour into Iraq from Iran and Syria. The Shia demonstrations were clearly organized from Tehran, and top Iraqi officials found havens in both countries. Indeed, as Baghdad fell, busloads of Iraqi leaders raced into Iran, boarded a civilian aircraft, and flew off to Sudan, even as Saddam Hussein himself headed for Damascus.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, a man of great patience and optimism, flew to Damascus himself last weekend to try to explain the new facts of life to President Assad, and to encourage him to change his behaviour and adapt to America's requirements.

It isn't likely to work and, at the end of the day, we will have to face the unpleasant fact that such regimes will never abandon terrorism.

Happily, it doesn't seem necessary to wage war in order to accomplish regime change in Tehran and Damascus. Political warfare is the order of the day, just as we brought down Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia, the Marcoses in the Philippines, and regimes in Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia in the latter days of the Cold War. I have no doubt that many Western countries will come to this conclusion, and collectively support the incipient democratic revolution that will start in Iran.

Michael Ledeen, author of The War Against the Terror Masters, is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and moderator of a conference on the future of Iran taking place today in Washington.

Strong US position in a new Iraq would put pressure on Tehran

 Gareth Smyth in Koisanjaq, in an interview with Secretary-general

FT.com site; May 02, 2003

The leader of Iran's largest Kurdish party has offered to open negotiations with Tehran, provided the Islamic Republic "declared its willingness publicly".

Abdullah Hassan-Zadeh, general secretary of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), told the Financial Times that his group, which is outlawed in Iran, wanted "Kurdish rights" but he played down its past commitment to replace the Islamic Republic with a democratic, secular state.

With the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad, there are now, for the first time in decades, no active war fronts involving the Kurds in Iraq, Iran or Turkey. Iran has 7m Kurds - fewer than the estimated 15m in Turkey but more than the 4m in Iraq and 1m in Syria.

The KDPI, which is based in Kurdish-held northern Iraq, ended its "armed struggle" against Iranian forces seven years ago.

Speaking at the KDPI headquarters in Koisanjaq, Mr Hassan-Zadeh welcomed the overthrow of the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, and hinted that the strong US position in a new Iraq would put pressure on Tehran.

"America's relations are not good with Iran," he said. "We do not want outside interference in Iran, but we would like the international community to support the Iranian opposition."

He thought it unlikely that the rising influence of Iraq's Shia Muslims, the majority community, would bring a new government in Baghdad closer to the Shia regime in Tehran.

"Mohammad Baqr Hakim [leader of the Tehran-based Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI] has been the strongest part of the Iraqi opposition after the Kurds, and it's true he's supported by Iran," said Mr Hassan-Zadeh. "But I think he's not really so near to them, and this will be clear in time."

Since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran's former leader, sent troops and revolutionary guards into Kurdish Iran in 1980, the KDPI and other Iranian Kurdish parties have faced an uphill struggle.

"We continue [unarmed] activities inside Iran," said Mr Hassan-Zadeh. "And because we no longer have a military presence, the regime has stopped shelling Kurdish areas."

Iranian Kurds voted overwhelmingly in 1997 for Mohammad Khatami, the reformist president, despite a call by the KDPI to abstain, and there are at least 30 Kurdish deputies in the 290-strong Iranian parliament. The number of Kurdish publications has increased, although the language is not allowed in schools and the Kurdish region is one of Iran's poorest.

Mr Hassan-Zadeh's call for talks with Tehran echoes the view of Kurdish leaders in Turkey and Iraq that their efforts can now be non- violent.

But prospects for peaceful Kurdish politics also depend on the regimes in Tehran, Ankara and Baghdad.

"Persians, Turks and Arabs have expended huge energy in fighting the Kurds - and yet we are still struggling," said Ibrahim Hashmi, a former KDPI commander in the Baneh region of Kurdish Iran. "Isn't it better to live in peace as neighbours?"

In a statement, the Secretary-general clarified a few misinterpreted points:

First, neither in this interview nor in anywhere else we have proposed any negotiations to the regime in Iran.  The only thing that has been said in this regard is that  PDKI believes in peaceful means to deal with the Kurdish issue in Iran, and whenever the ruling elite openly proposes serious negotiations to solve these differences, PDKI will welcomes it.  This is on top of these principles that our Party has declared and is in no need of repetition.

Second, PDKI has in no way changed it policy in regards to the regime in Iran, and as usual, the struggle to topple the regime is of top priority.  In this interview, nothing has been said in contrary to this objective.

Third, in regards to armed struggle against the Islamic Republic, the only thing that I have said was that since 1997, we have not had any defensive armed activities, and this does not imply that we have abandoned armed struggle.  I should also add that PDKI has constantly repeated that this is another form of struggle imposed on us, and we support peaceful struggle.

In Brief:

www.pdk-iran.org©PDKI  All Rights Reserved.