Rajavi threatens same violent resistance as July - Iran ex-rebels defy police orders to quit Iraq camp
Iran ex-rebels defy police orders to quit Iraq camp
(Rajavi threatens same violent resistance as July)
.
... People’s Mujahedeen representative Mehdi Farahi told Iraqi officials residents would not leave Camp Ashraf, where they were installed by Saddam’s regime 80 kilometres (50 miles) north of Baghdad in 1985. Any attempt to expel us forcibly will lead to the same clashes and confrontations as those of July 28 and 29,” he said, referring to violence at the camp this year in which the group says 11 people were killed ...
(Leader of Terrorist Mojahedin Khalq with Saddam Hussein)
(Chemical attack on Halabche, Kurdistan, Iraq)
Disarmed Iranian rebels and their families defied Iraqi police instructions on Tuesday for them to leave a border camp the government has ordered closed, an AFP correspondent reported.
Police toured the camp reminding residents over loudspeakers of the deadline set by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for their departure for alternative accommodation in southern Iraq but they refused to leave.
Maliki wants the former fighters of the People’s Mujahedeen, which fought with Saddam Hussein’s regime against Iran in the 1980-88 war, to move to the new camp with their families as a first stage towards leaving Iraq.
But People’s Mujahedeen representative Mehdi Farahi told Iraqi officials residents would not leave Camp Ashraf, where they were installed by Saddam’s regime 80 kilometres (50 miles) north of Baghdad in 1985.
Any attempt to expel us forcibly will lead to the same clashes and confrontations as those of July 28 and 29,” he said, referring to violence at the camp this year in which the group says 11 people were killed.
“The manner in which the Iraqi government is acting is contrary to international law,” he added.
Iraqi police were out in force and an AFP correspondent saw few residents on the camp’s well-tended streets.
One of the camp’s leaders, Shahriar Kia, said the People’s Mujahedeen had invested more than 200 million dollars in Ashraf and residents were determined to resist the orders to move to Neqrat al-Salman, a desert camp 350 kilometres (220 miles) south of Baghdad where Saddam used to send opponents of his regime. Bakak Saraz, who has lived in Ashraf virtually since it was first set up, told AFP: “They want to chase us out of here so that they can kill us but we would rather die in Ashraf than go to Salman.”
Washington, which disarmed the Iranian rebels after the invasion of 2003 and placed the camp residents under its protection, said on Friday it expected the Baghdad government to act legally and humanely in relocating camp residents.
“The government of Iraq has assured us that they would not deport any of these citizens to any country where they would be having a well-grounded fear of being treated inhumanely,” said State Department spokesman Ian Kelly, in allusion to Iran.
But Iraqi army Colonel Bassel Hamad insisted the security forces had behaved correctly throughout.
“We respected all the human rights; there was no transgression,” he told reporters.
“The decision came according to a central decision from the Iraqi government. They live on Iraqi ground and there are local laws, and I don’t think there is a pressure made by Iran on the Iraqi government to make this decision.” he said.
A statement from the Iraqi prime minister announcing the camp’s closure was released last Thursday.
“We have taken the decision to get them (the People’s Mujahedeen) out of Iraq ... and the process of their moving to Neqrat al-Salman is a step on the way of taking them out of the country,” Maliki said.
“Their presence in Ashraf represents a danger because of their historical relations with certain political groups, notably with the remains of the former (Iraqi) regime and members of Al-Qaeda.”
The People’s Mujahedeen was founded in 1965 in opposition to the shah of Iran and subsequently fought the clerical regime that ousted him in the 1979 Islamic revolution.
The group, which has been blamed for bombings and other attacks inside Iran in the past, is anathema to the Tehran regime which derides its members as “hypocrites.” Philip Frayne, spokesman for the US embassy in Baghdad, said on Tuesday the United States had “no obligation, and no right ... to provide protection to the residents of Ashraf.
“We still expect the Iraqi government to treat them humanely, in accordance with its laws and international obligations, and not to forcibly deport them to any country where they have a fear of torture or persecution,” he said.
(Massoud and Maryam Rajavi theMojahedin Khalq cult leaders)
(Maryam Rajavi directly ordered the massacre of Kurdish people)
Iraqi MPs support the transfer of Mojahedin Khalq to Baghdad
Demand America respect Iraqi sovereignty and invite them to take responsibility for protecting MKO
.
... the Government would deal with members of the People's Mojahedin Organization humanely, but at the same time we want the United States to respect our decision and comply with non-interference in the internal affairs and sovereignty over Iraq’s territory, as we do not want to alienate our relations with neighbouring countries ...
BAGHDAD / Aswat al-Iraq: Iraqi lawmakers on Monday expressed support for the Government plan to transfer members of the Mojahedin Khalq, an Iranian opposition, to Baghdad, calling on the U.S. Government to respect the decision as a sovereign right of Iraq. But the Vice-Council has urged the U.S. Government to take over responsibility for security for the camp’s members who should be transferred to the U.S. Forces.
The MP, Abdul Hadi al-Hassani, said in respect of the rule of law, the Government would deal with members of the People's Mojahedin Organization humanely, but at the same time we want the United States to respect our decision and comply with non-interference in the internal affairs and sovereignty over Iraq’s territory, as we do not want to alienate our relations with neighbouring countries.
Mr al-Hassani told Aswat al-Iraq that the Iraqi Government sees "the need to remove the MKO from the Iranian border and the PKK from the Turkish border," pointing out that the two sides "are a danger to Iraq's relations with its neighbours ".
He explained that the Government's holds documents and pictures which are compelling evidence "which condemns the members of the MKO and the PKK for their armed operations during the former regime and the current phase."
The United States yesterday called on the Iraqi government to treat the Iranian dissidents, living on Iraqi territory for twenty years, humanely following the announcement of the transfer of the MEK camp to Baghdad.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said in a statement from the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, we urged the Iraqi authorities to go about the transfer of Camp Ashraf in a legitimate and humanitarian way, emphasizing Iraqi sovereignty over all Iraqi territory, including the area on which Camp Ashraf stands. And the Iraqi government assured us that "it would not expel any of these persons to a country where they may face inhuman treatment”.
On the other hand, the Deputy of the Iraqi National Coalition, Hamid Malp, in a statement rejected the U.S. State Department demand that the Iraqi government deal humanely with the members of the MKO which were involved in terrorism in Iraq during the former regime as well as now embracing armed groups in Diyala and Baghdad."
Malp told (Voices of Iraq) that there is intelligence information with the Government which "emphasizes the organization and financing of a link from some quarters outside the law." In an afterthought he said "his forces would take the decision to hold people accountable only after support and documentation of this information," he says.
Malp said that the transfer to the MKO camp to Baghdad, "will lead to positive results in the various sectors," pointing out that the Organization's presence in Diyala has been "a controversial subject for a long time."
The Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said on Thursday, 10 December, that the population of Camp New Iraq (formerly Camp Ashraf) would be transferred next week to Baghdad.
The Iraqi Government took over responsibility for security inside Camp Ashraf from U.S. forces early this year and re-named it Camp New Iraq in August.
In the same context, Mohammed Tamim, MP for the Dialogue Council, said the U.S. State Department's demand for the Iraqi government to deal with the MKO humanely was "insufficient" and called on U.S. forces to "take over security responsibility for the camp, so the Iraqi government can transfer members of the organization to the U.S."
Tamim told Aswat al-Iraq that the decision to transfer the members of the Mojahedin from Camp Ashraf to Baghdad after two days of bombings (Bloody Tuesday) was "erroneous and imported from Iran." He said the decision was a “negative step resulting from the Iraqi Government’s efforts to convince the Iranians that the MKO was behind explosions that occur in the country".
Attorney Tamim said that the people of Camp Ashraf are "refugees, entitled to Iraqi Government help to provide an appropriate atmosphere to them after their escape from a terrorist group, such as is the obligation of the Arab and international community.”
According to the MP from the Kurdistan Alliance bloc Abdul Bari Zebari, "the Iraqi Government condemns the group for their documented participation in the suppression of the popular uprising in 1991 and attack on the worshipers in a mosque in Sadr City in Baghdad the same year, and that the regime of Saddam Hussein used the MKO to attack his opponents."
Zebari told Aswat al-Iraq that he believed that the Government "only took the decision to transfer the group to Baghdad after discussion with the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and after guaranteeing the members of the Organization would not be exposed to danger”. He added, "For the time being we should not repeat the process of involving the embassy in local affairs as happened when Iraqi security forces entered into Camp Ashraf for the establishment of a police base inside it."
The Mojahedin Khalq, an Iranian opposition group, numbers about 3500 people, based in Camp Ashraf, which covers an area of 16 square kilometres, 55 km north of Baquba, capital of Diyala province where it has been based since 1986.
France respects Iraqi sovereignty, supports dismantlement of Camp Ashraf
.
... This requirement of respect for human rights must also apply to officers of the PMOI which, by all accounts, continues to use practices to intimidate the camp residents. Thus, they would not be free to decide their fate. As you know, France had objected that the PMOI, on the list of European terrorist organizations since 2002, was withdrawn in 2008 ...
Written Question No. 10,055 of Mr. Jean-Pierre Chevènement (Territoire de Belfort - RDSE) published in the OJ Senate 10/09/2009 - page 2110
Mr. Jean-Pierre Chevènement brings to the attention of the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs the very serious situation for Iranian refugees in Camp Ashraf in Iraq. This camp was created in 1986 in Diyala province, north of Baghdad, to house thousands of members of the People’s Mojahedin of Iran, an opposition group to the Iranian regime. After the 2003 fall of Saddam Hussein, who protected them and used them as his instruments, they were disarmed by U.S. forces and received the status of "protected persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention. On June 17, 2008, the Iraqi Council of Ministers adopted a directive stipulating that members of this organization would be expelled from Iraq. On 1 January 2009, the United States has ceded control of the camp to Iraqi authorities. Last July, the Iraqi army entered the camp by force causing many casualties (11 dead and 450 injured according to some NGOs). He asked what action the French Government intends to take with the Iraqi Government that shed will light on these events and that steps be taken so that the Fourth Geneva Convention is respected and what steps he has taken, including the United Nations (UN) so that these refugees are not deported to the Islamic Republic of Iran given the power relationship that exists between this country and Iraq. Response from the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs
published in the OJ Senate 12/11/2009 - page 2632
As you know, France has consistently expressed its support for the recovery by the Iraqi authorities of their full sovereignty as soon as possible. One of the milestones of this process, we have welcomed, was the agreement to withdraw American forces, adopted by the Iraqi parliament in November 2008, which stipulates that Iraqi forces gradually take over from U.S. forces and Iraqi authorities will be able to extend their authority throughout their territory. The restoration of the sovereignty of Iraq of course includes Camp Ashraf, the vast area located 80 km from Baghdad and occupied by the People’s Mojahedin Organisation (PMOI), with special status. It had been granted to them by Saddam Hussein in 1986. The Iraqi authorities did not wish indeed to continue sheltering on its territory and close to Iran, a base belonging to an organization that has participated in military action against Iraq and the crimes committed by the former regime Saddam Hussein against his people. It is in this context that in January 2009, the Iraqi authorities informed the heads of diplomatic missions in Baghdad and Camp Ashraf that it could not benefit from any privilege of extraterritoriality and that it was intended to be closed through a process overseen by international law. In this context also, and as a result of failed negotiations with the camp residents, the Iraqi authorities intervened in July 2009 within the enclave to establish a police station. This unfortunately took a violent turn: eleven victims and many wounded on both sides are to be deplored. France is naturally agreed that the implementation of the closure of Camp Ashraf is done with full respect for principles of international law. This is the message that we passed several times in the national and European framework to the Iraqi authorities, including the Iraqi Minister of Human Rights who is responsible for this issue. This requirement of respect for human rights must also apply to officers of the PMOI which, by all accounts, continues to use practices to intimidate the camp residents. Thus, they would not be free to decide their fate. As you know, France had objected that the PMOI, on the list of European terrorist organizations since 2002, was withdrawn in 2008. The PMOI is still considered a terrorist organization in several countries, including Canada, the United States and Iraq. France welcomes the efforts of the mission of United Nations Assistance in Iraq (UNAMI) through its Office of Human Rights, the High Commission of United Nations Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross so that a solution can be found on this difficult issue, which is respectful of Iraqi sovereignty and law.
... Ian Kelly, a spokesman for the U.S. State Department, said Friday that while Washington recognizes Iraq's sovereign right to exercise authority over group, human rights should be observed ...
WASHINGTON , Dec. 11 (UPI) -- Washington respects any Iraqi decision regarding members of the dissident group People's Mujahedin of Iran but urges caution, the U.S. State Department said.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said this week that members of the PMOI would be relocated from their Camp Ashraf enclave in Diyala province first to Baghdad and then to a desert outpost in the Shiite south of the country.
The PMOI opposes the clerical regime in Iran. Washington lists the group as a terrorist organization for its violent methods of opposition, though the group surrendered is weapons in 2003 and now claims its policy is based on peaceful dissent.
Iraqi forces stormed the Camp Ashraf enclave when U.S. combat forces pulled out of major cities to their military bases earlier this year. Several Ashraf residents died during the raid.
The group claims Iraqi authorities are acting out against its members under pressure from Tehran.
Amnesty International said Baghdad gave the group until Tuesday to leave the camp or they could face deportation to Iran.
Ian Kelly, a spokesman for the U.S. State Department, said Friday that while Washington recognizes Iraq's sovereign right to exercise authority over group, human rights should be observed.
"Diplomatically, we respect Iraqi sovereignty," he said. "But of course, we're making it clear that we would expect the residents of Camp Ashraf to be treated well and with respect."
Britain says MKO (rajavi cult) in Camp Ashraf subject to Iraqi law - protected persons status not applicable
.
... The UK is of the view that the residents of Camp Ashraf, as with all people in Iraq, enjoy rights and protections under the Iraqi constitution and applicable international obligations to which Iraq is a signatory. We do not consider that they have 'protected persons' status ...
Iraq: Iran Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Written answers and statements, 25 November 2009
Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour) To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's assessment is of the status in international law of the residents of Camp Ashraf, Iraq; and if he will make a statement.
Ivan Lewis (Minister of State (Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs), Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Bury South, Labour) Camp Ashraf is in a sovereign and democratic Iraq and the camp residents subject to its laws. The UK is of the view that the residents of Camp Ashraf, as with all people in Iraq, enjoy rights and protections under the Iraqi constitution and applicable international obligations to which Iraq is a signatory. We do not consider that they have 'protected persons' status.
We do not feel a ministerial statement is necessary at this time.
... Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: Why is no European nation, or North America, willing to accept any of the residents of Camp Ashraf? May it have something to do with their previous activities? Is the Minister absolutely determined either to prove that the Camp Ashraf residents cannot return to the Islamic Republic of Iran or to press European nations to bring them out? What responsibility do the Iraqi Government have to keep these former enemies of the Iraqi people? ...
[Iran-Interlink – The MKO do not have Protected Persons status under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The group has no legal status in Iraq. The U.N. has refused to give them refugee status in Iraq. The Government of Iraq has stated that the relocation of the 3,400 MKO members in Camp Ashraf to a place distant from Iran’s borders is necessary for their safety. The MKO has violently resisted any attempts to enforce Iraqi law inside the camp.]
Iraq: Camp Ashraf — Question House of Lords debates, 23 November 2009, 2:49 pm All Lords debates on 23 Nov 2009
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale (Labour) To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have made to the Government of Iraq about their threat to use force to relocate 3,400 Iranian dissident refugees at Camp Ashraf to elsewhere in Iraq.
Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour) My Lords, we encourage the Iraqi authorities and the Camp Ashraf leadership to find a lasting and acceptable solution for the future of the residents. We have relayed this message to the Iraqi Government at the highest levels, including to the Iraqi Prime Minister. Camp Ashraf is in a sovereign and democratic Iraq and, ultimately, decisions on the future location of the camp are for the Iraqi Government to resolve.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale (Labour) Will my noble friend confirm that the United Kingdom supports the views of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, the ICRC and the UNHCR that it would further breach international humanitarian law if Iraq carried out its threat to again use violent force against defenceless Iranian refugees at Ashraf, so adding to the toll of 11 dead and hundreds injured in its July assault? Will the Government join efforts to persuade Iraq to accept a UN monitoring force at Ashraf to help talks between Iraq and the residents on their future to continue in a calm atmosphere?
Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour) My Lords, in light of the tragic deaths of 11 people and many others injured at Camp Ashraf on 20 July, the Government have raised the issue with the Iraqi Government seeking a review of the event. We also raised the question of a UN presence in the camp. That was acceded to in discussions between the PMOI and the Government of Iraq and is now established, with a mission that is monitoring human rights and the humanitarian situation at Camp Ashraf, liaising with American and Iraqi counterparts as well as with the PMOI, regularly reporting on the situation to the SRSG and the OHCHR in Geneva, and assessing the possibilities and the presence of enabling conditions by the GoI-the Government of Iraq-for a later deployment of UNHCR staff and other actions as required.
Lord Waddington (Conservative) Perhaps the noble Lord can help on this. Did Her Majesty's Government make representations to the Iraqi authorities about the blockade of Ashraf, subsequent to the attack in July, and about the outrageous situation in which the authorities prevented even doctors from entering the camp to look after people who had been injured in the attack, or are Her Majesty's Government washing their hands of the whole matter and saying that they no longer have any real responsibility for the people of Ashraf as protected persons under the Geneva conventions? If it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that they have no responsibility in that regard, how did they come to that conclusion?
Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour) I refer the noble Lord to an answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, when I dealt with the whole question of the immunities that people believe exist but which do not exist in relation to Camp Ashraf. It is in sovereign Iraqi territory-a democratic state. On the other hand, we do not resile at all from trying to ensure that humanitarian conditions exist and that assurances are kept that no one will be transferred from that camp to a country in which their lives are in danger. In that sense, we are clear about the issue. We are less clear about accusations, for which we have no independent authoritative evidence from the UN or anywhere else, that people are being prevented from having medicines and other things. If there is any hard evidence, I would be more than delighted to refer it to my Foreign Office colleagues for investigation.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Liberal Democrat) Why is no European nation, or North America, willing to accept any of the residents of Camp Ashraf? May it have something to do with their previous activities? Is the Minister absolutely determined either to prove that the Camp Ashraf residents cannot return to the Islamic Republic of Iran or to press European nations to bring them out? What responsibility do the Iraqi Government have to keep these former enemies of the Iraqi people?
Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour) The noble Baroness raises a question that has undoubtedly been the subject of considerable discussion in Iraq. People in the camp probably find no favour in the country from which they came and little favour in the country of their adoption, given their previous adherence to the regime that has now been removed. The short answer is that no one outside the country seems to show any great enthusiasm for bringing in people in Camp Ashraf. Many of them may be innocent, but there are people in that camp with a clear history of attacks in Iran-attacks which they may have now abandoned-that makes them unpopular in that country and of support for a dictator that makes them equally unpopular in Iraq.
Baroness Turner of Camden (Labour) My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that these people have protected person status under United Nations law? That being so, would it not be possible to persuade EU countries to provide these people with refuge? These are genuine refugees who deserve protection.
Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour) Alas, it is not the case that people in Camp Ashraf have protected person status under the Fourth Geneva Convention. That has ceased to apply. That view is shared by the United Nations, the Government of Iraq, the United States and us. It is a mistake to believe that there is international protection for these individuals. However, that does not mean that we should abandon them to be subject to inhuman treatment or to be transferred to regimes in countries where their lives would be in danger.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Liberal Democrat) My Lords, I appreciate the clarification provided by the Minister regarding the status of these people in Camp Ashraf. However, in light of the Iraqi Government's pledge that these people will not be forcibly repatriated to Iran, have Her Majesty's Government been in any discussions with the Iraqi Government as to whether they might be given political asylum in this country?
Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour) As I said, the UK Government have no locus in Iraq in relation to these people. The discussions have been held internationally through the United States, which had control prior to the ending of the Geneva Convention status. That status was given in the first place only because the Americans chose to accept and adopt it, rather than because there was any international obligation. It is clear that there is no nation-alas, it might be said-for these individuals outside the country that they are in, albeit that they are very reluctantly accepted; no other country is prepared to give residence status to them.
Lord Dholakia (Liberal Democrat) My Lords, following the violence that was perpetrated on residents of Camp Ashraf, Members of the House of Lords met the Minister, Ivan Lewis, who promised to make representations when he visited Iraq and to convey our concern. The Minister has given the answer in relation to making representations, but what was the response of the Iraqi Government?
Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour) The Iraqi Government agreed to put in place an inquiry, the results of which we do not know. My ministerial colleague Ivan Lewis will visit Iraq in December and will no doubt keep the promise that he made to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and colleagues to raise this issue at the highest level.
Lord Elton (Conservative) My Lords, there are many settlements around the world of people who are unwelcome in the country from which they have fled and unwelcome in the country to which they have fled. The United Nations does a considerable job in getting them settled in third countries. What steps are we taking to assist that effort in this case?
Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour) The United Nations is seeking a solution to the problem but, as I hope I have explained, it is not easy when the country of origin sees the individuals as people who attack them and the country that they are in sees them as people who attack them. In that sense, we are protecting the humanitarian support for these individuals where they are and trying to ensure that they are humanely treated and not transported to other countries. But we have a very limited locus in this matter.
... The Iraqi authorities have said they intend to resettle all 36 to other countries once suitable arrangements are in place. They had been detained under a combination of charges related to the violence at the camp on
28 July 2009 and immigration violations ...
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received on the detention of 36 Camp Ashraf residents without charge or trial by Iraqi forces; and if he will make a statement.
Ivan Lewis (Minister of State ( Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Bury South, Labour)
The Iraqi Government have given assurances that no Camp Ashraf residents would be forcibly transferred to a country where they have reason to fear persecution, or where substantial grounds exist to believe they would be tortured.
All 36 arrested on
28 July 2009 were released on
7 October 2009 and have returned to Camp Ashraf. The Iraqi authorities have said they intend to resettle all 36 to other countries once suitable arrangements are in place. They had been detained under a combination of charges related to the violence at the camp on
28 July 2009 and immigration violations.
Our ambassador in Baghdad met the Iraqi Human Rights Minister on
6 October 2009 to discuss the detention of the 36. He was briefed on the efforts underway to make arrangements for their release.
During their detention our embassy in Baghdad was in regular contact with the Iraqi authorities, the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The UN confirmed that they have been held in acceptable local conditions. Food and water was available throughout, but the 36 men chose to follow a hunger strike in protest at their detention. Medical care was provided during their detention. The 36 had regular access to the ICRC.
UK Parliament - some sensible answers to Mojahedin (Rajavi cult) claims
.
... In the case of occupied territory, the Convention continues to apply for a year after the general close of military operations, and partially thereafter if the occupying power continues to exercise the functions of government. The occupation of Iraq formally ended on 30 June 2004...
UK Parliament, April 20-21 2009
Written answers Monday, 20 April 2009 Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Iraq: Mujahedin-e Khalq David Drew (Stroud, Labour) To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of alleged attacks on residents in Ashraf City by members of the Iraqi secret service; and if he will make a statement. Bill Rammell (Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Harlow, Labour) holding answer 20 March 2009 We are aware that such allegations have surfaced in the Iraqi media. We have discussed these allegations with the US, who retain a presence inside Camp Ashraf, and with the Iraqi government. We have seen no evidence to support the allegations.
Written answers Monday, 20 April 2009 House of Lords Iran Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Crossbench) To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to ensure that Camp Ashraf residents who are members of the People's Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran are not expelled to Iran by the Iraqi authorities; and what alternatives to that they have proposed through the United Nations. Lord Malloch-Brown (Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Labour) Responsibility for the security and administration of Camp Ashraf was transferred on 1 January 2009 from the US to the Iraqi authorities. Prior to this handover the US received assurances from the Iraqi authorities towards their clear commitment to the humane treatment and continued well-being of the camp residents. The US retains a presence at the camp in an advisory/monitoring capacity. The Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights visits the camp and has delivered assurances to a representative body of the residents. The International Committee of the Red Cross follows developments at the camp closely and continues to visit. It also discusses on a confidential basis all of the issues surrounding the camp with the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) and the Iraqi and US authorities. The UN High Commission for Refugees has previously determined that Camp Ashraf residents do not qualify as refugees. While there is no evidence to suggest that the Government of Iraq intend forcibly to relocate the residents, our Embassy in Baghdad has requested a call on the Ministry of Human Rights to make known the level of interest in this issue in the UK and to remind the Iraqi Government of their earlier assurances. Our Embassy in Baghdad is also pursuing the possibility of a visit to the camp by a consular official.
Written answers Tuesday, 21 April 2009 House of Lords Iraq Lord King of West Bromwich (Labour) To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have made to the Government of Iraq to safeguard the human rights and safety of Iranian residents in Ashraf City; and with what results. Lord Malloch-Brown (Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Labour) The US held responsibility for the security and administration of Camp Ashraf until 1 January 2009. Responsibility was then transferred from the US to Iraqi authorities. The modalities of the transfer had been discussed by both sides with UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq. Prior to the transfer, the US received assurances from the Iraqi authorities towards their clear commitment to the humane treatment and continued wellbeing of the camp residents. The US retains a presence at the camp in an advisory/monitoring capacity. The Government of Iraq have stated that no Camp Ashraf residents will be forcibly transferred to a country where they have reason to fear persecution. The Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights visits the camp and has delivered assurances to a representative body of the residents. The International Committee of the Red Cross follows developments at the camp closely and continues to visit. It also discusses on a confidential basis all of the issues surrounding the camp with the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MeK) and the Iraqi and US authorities. While no specific representations to the Government of Iraq have been made, our embassy in Baghdad has requested a call on the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights to make known the level of interest in this issue in the UK and to remind the Iraqi Government of its earlier assurances. In addition to this, as stated by my honourable friend, Bill Rammell, Minister of State for the Middle East, during an adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on 25 March 2009 (Hansard, col. 90WH) "the British embassy in Baghdad is pursuing the possibility of a visit by a consular official to Camp Ashraf" to ascertain whether any of its residents might be entitled to consular assistance.
Library of the House of Commons In brief: Camp Ashraf and the Geneva Conventions Standard note: SN/IA/05022 Last updated: 20 March 2009 Author: Arabella Thorp Section: International Affairs and Defence Section What is Camp Ashraf ? Ashraf is a settlement in Iraq’s Diyala province, near the border with Iran, which houses the headquarters of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI), also known as Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) or Mujahideen-e-Khalq Organisation (MKO). The PMOI is the main body in the coalition of Iranian opposition groups known as the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), and is regarded as a terrorist organisation by a number of states but has now been removed from the UK and EU lists of terrorist organisations. It sided with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, but following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 the PMOI surrendered to US forces and 3,800 PMOI members were disarmed and cantoned in Camp Ashraf. Some 370 have since been voluntarily repatriated to Iran , and in 2004 restrictions and controls were removed. The Iraqi government has stated its intention to close the camp and expel all PMOI personnel from Iraqi territory. Who is responsible for the inhabitants of Ashraf? The main responsibility to protect civilians lies with the states that have effective control over them. From 2003 until 31 December 2008 US forces protected Camp Ashraf. Then on 1 January 2009, control passed to the Iraqi Government, under the new US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. Both the US and Iraqi governments have given assurances that, within the framework of Iraqi national legislation, Ashraf residents will be treated in accordance with international humanitarian law and with the principle of non-refoulement in particular. The UK considers the issue primarily a US rather than a UK responsibility. What are the main concerns? Lliving conditions at Ashraf are not generally a cause for concern, although an explosion damaged Ashraf’s water-supply station in February 2008. The main concern is that its inhabitants would be at risk of torture or other serious human rights violations if they were to be returned involuntarily to Iran. Iraq has reportedly given Ashraf’s inhabitants two options: return to Iran or find a third country for exile. Iraqi officials have however stated that PMOI members would not be forcibly repatriated to Iran and have called upon the international community to offer asylum to Ashraf’s occupants. People who have left Camp Ashraf voluntarily have reported 'brain-washing', forced indoctrination and rough treatment by the PMOI of those who wanted to leave the camp. This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required. This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public. Do the Geneva Conventions apply? In July 2004, the PMOI forces in Ashraf were declared by the US to be ‘protected persons’ under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, because they had not been belligerents during the Iraq War. The Fourth Geneva Convention protects civilians who, as the result of an international armed conflict or of occupation, find themselves in the hands of a country of which they are not nationals. It states that in no circumstances shall a protected person be transferred to a country where he or she may have reason to fear persecution for his or her political opinions or religious beliefs. In the case of occupied territory, the Convention continues to apply for a year after the general close of military operations, and partially thereafter if the occupying power continues to exercise the functions of government. The occupation of Iraq formally ended on 30 June 2004. What other international law is relevant? Under the international law principle of non-refoulement, no-one should be deported, expelled or repatriated if there is a real risk that they may be subjected to any kind of ill-treatment, or that they may face persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The US has ratified international conventions embodying this principle (the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture), but Iraq has not. However, non-refoulement is widely recognised as a principle of customary international law that binds all states. Further reading Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre, Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), 5 March 2009 [available through the Parliamentary Intranet] Juan-Pedro Schaerer, Iraq: ICRC activities in behalf of Iranian nationals living in Ashraf, 3 December 2008 Zouhair Al Hassani, ‘International humanitarian law and its implementation in Iraq ’, International Review of the Red Cross Vol. 90 No. 869, March 2008 Knut Dörmann and Laurent Colassis, ‘International Humanitarian Law in the Iraq Conflict’, German Yearbook of International Law 47 (2004), 293–342 International Committee of the Red Cross, Protected persons and property and international humanitarian law [viewed 20 March 2009] Amnesty International, Iraq: No Iranians in need of protection should be sent to Iran against their will, 28 August 2008 Amnesty International, Security agreement puts 16,000 Iraqi detainees at risk of torture, 28 November 2008 Massoud Khodabandeh (former member of PMOI), Camp Ashraf: a test of US-Iraqi relations, 7 April 2008 Iran Interlink, Nejat Society Asks UK to Support Iraqi Government Plans for Camp Ashraf Victims, 11 December 2008 Hon. David Kilgour, J.D., ‘Catastrophe on horizon for Camp Ashraf refugees’, Middle East Times 8 October 2008 House of Lords debate, Iraq: Ashraf City, HL Deb 2 March 2009 cc504-6
Second Report on Camp Ashraf and Mojahedin-e Khalq in Iraq
.
... The MKO is currently demanding that U.S. Army or the U.N. take control of Camp Ashraf from the GOI. Following publication of the RAND Report it should be the duty of the U.S. Army to help and facilitate in any way possible the immediate closure of Camp Ashraf and the removal of the MKO personnel from Iraq. The more help given by the U.S. to achieve this, the more ...
Iran-Interlink.org has published a second report on Camp Ashraf, Iraq and the situation of Mojahedin-e Khalq (aka MKO, MEK) cult members at the camp. After consultation with the Government of Iraq, Massoud Khodabandeh has described events since January 1, 2009.
According to the report, Iraq is determined to rid itself of the foreign terrorist cult led by Massoud and Maryam Rajavi as soon as possible, but is hampered by western intransigence over where these people should go.
The 3416 individuals inside Camp Ashraf have no legal status in Iraq. They are not entitled to 'protected persons' status under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Neither will they be granted political refugee status by Iraq. Nor will Iraq forcibly repatriate them. But, although the MKO has been de-proscribed, at its own behest, as a terrorist group in Europe, no western country is willing to offer asylum to the individuals -- even though 1015 MKO members have a passport or residence permit of a third country.
After months of fruitless negotiations with MKO leaders -- with U.S. observation -- a police post was established inside Camp Ashraf at the end of July. In spite of violent resistance by the MKO which led to 11 deaths, the camp residents are now subject to Iraqi law. Following evidence that MKO leaders were committing widespread and systematic human rights abuses inside the camp, the Iraqi Human Rights Ministry, in conjunction with international humanitarian agencies, is now set to properly monitor activity at the camp.
Massoud Khodabandeh made several recommendations in his report. The Government of Iraq should remove around seventy MKO leaders in order to protect the rank and file members from human rights abuses and coercion. The camp must be thoroughly searched -- something the U.S. Army failed to do since 2003.
Stressing that western governments bear a responsibility toward the MKO's victims trapped inside Camp Ashraf, Mr. Khodabandeh says that western politicians must prevent further political abuse of MKO members by the Rajavi leadership and guarantee the rights of those individuals who renounce violence and are willing to return to society. European governments should work with Iraq and the UN to find third countries to which other individuals in Camp Ashraf can be transferred.
For more information contact: Anne Singleton +44 (0) 113 278 0503
.jpg)
BAGHDAD / Aswat al-Iraq: Iraqi lawmakers on Monday expressed support for the Government plan to transfer members of the Mojahedin Khalq, an Iranian opposition, to Baghdad, calling on the U.S. Government to respect the decision as a sovereign right of Iraq. But the Vice-Council has urged the U.S. Government to take over responsibility for security for the camp’s members who should be transferred to the U.S. Forces. 
Iran-Interlink.org has published a second report on Camp Ashraf, Iraq and the situation of Mojahedin-e Khalq (aka MKO, MEK) cult members at the camp. After consultation with the Government of Iraq, Massoud Khodabandeh has described events since January 1, 2009. 