Iraq: Camp closure a preliminary measure to end their existence (Any other state is welcome to host the MKO)
Iraq: Camp closure a preliminary measure to end their existence
Any other state is welcome to host the MKO
.
... Moving them from this camp is a prelude to moving them to outside Iraq and to any state that would accept them, or perhaps if they benefit from any pardon, which the Iranian Government would offer them ...
Al-Iraqiyah TV, Arabic, Baghdad, December 17, 2009
Translated by: BBC Monitoring Middle East
Baghdad Al-Iraqiyah Television in Arabic at 1158 gmt on 16 December carries a 52-minute live or recorded news conference by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki at the Council of Ministers' Press Centre in Baghdad;
(Iraqi PM, Dr. Nuri al-Maliki)
.
... Answering a question to the effect that some news agencies and space channels carried "conflicting" statements by the prime minister and the government's official spokesman on the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization, whether this organization will "be moved to the outskirts of Baghdad or to outside Baghdad, and whether this is a prelude to moving it outside the country," Al-Maliki says: "This organization has a bad history in Iraq. It has committed crimes against the Iraqis. The former regime has used it as a security agency. It has committed massacres during Friday prayers in Kifri and Kalar against the Kurds. In the records of many of the world states, it is accused as a terrorist organization. Based on our constitution, policy, and approach, we will never turn Iraq into a headquarters or a passageway for any terrorist organization."
He adds: "Our policy and constitution do not allow us to host any side that causes a crisis with any state in the world. Therefore, we have prevented many sides, which sought to use Iraq as a springboard against Arab states, and we told them that we would never allow this. Based on these introductions, background, and history, and out of protecting Iraq's unity, security, and sovereignty, this organization has no place in Iraq. These are only preliminary measures to end their existence. We spoke with the world states and told them that we welcome anyone who wants to host them. We will not force this organization to return to Iran or to extradite it to it, but we will not allow an organization, which is accused of terrorism, to stay in Iraq. I do not think there was any contradiction in statements. Moving them from this camp is a prelude to moving them to outside Iraq and to any state that would accept them, or perhaps if they benefit from any pardon, which the Iranian Government would offer them." ...
(Massoud and Maryam Rajavi theMojahedin Khalq cult leaders)
Maryam Rajavi and the Mojahedin Khalq Logo!! in Paris HQ
----------
Full interview:
Iraqi prime minister holds news conference on security situation, elections
At the outset of the news conference, Al-Maliki makes a statement, in which he says: "Iraq is witnessing intensive action these days. [Words missing because of interruption in the link] the criminal acts, which the elements of Al-Qa'idah and the Ba'th Party have carried out. The goals, which these sides want to achieve in Iraq, are clear. They want to obstruct the elections, disrupt the political and democratic process, and make the Iraqis feel that the experience has failed, and therefore, they have to search for an alternative. Their proposed alternative is the Ba'thist alternative or the extremist sectarian alternative by Al-Qa'idah. They also want to take Iraq backward. These plans and schemes are not conceived on the spur of the moment, but they have existed from the very beginning. They have promised their supporters time and again that they will achieve their goals through the return of the buried regime and by foiling the democratic experience. The will of the Iraqi people and the good political forces, however, was firm and strong. It has faced huge challenges and has overcome them."
Al-Maliki then reviews the security situation over the past years, and explains how Baghdad "was isolated" from the other governorates and the neighbouring states. He adds: "The result, however, providing you are witnesses to this and the whole world can see how Iraq switched from missing security to a security situation in which the citizens move freely. The people now go out during festivals and occasions and for visits. The streets are now crowded with cars and movement. This indicates a healthy situation. This also shows that Iraq has restored its normal situation on the political, regional, and international levels, and has quickly taken advanced positions. This is represented in the international companies' arrival in Iraq. These companies would not have come to Iraq had there not been security, which helps the investment process. Definitely, this was not achieved spontaneously or by luck, but it was achieved based on planning and a drawn security strategy and not as some sides regrettably say. I hope that the security process will be viewed in a realistic way to the effect that what was achieved was the outcome of a policy, a carefully planned policy, which moved in steps.
"These steps began with the Law Enforcement Plan in Baghdad. They then extended to the other areas. Baghdad then was divided into sectors to deploy military units in these sectors. This was also accompanied by the national reconciliation process in order to create an incubator for the security agencies to help them accomplish their big tasks and face the serious challenges. Thus, this strategy included a host of measures. I regret to hear or read that some sides say that there is no security strategy or a security philosophy in Iraq. I ask these sides how security was achieved in a way, which allowed you to move freely in the street?"
Al-Maliki says: "When the enemy is immoral, trained, and supported, such robberies take place and some security agencies might be inattentive. However, when we compare this to the size of challenge that Iraq has faced and to the unlimited support and the capabilities, which the terrorists inherited from the buried regime, we will realize that it is only natural that such incidents, which we do not accept, take place. We are pained by the shedding of any drop of the blood of any innocent Iraqi citizen in any area in Iraq. However, this is a battle with sides, which have no morals or values. These sides are indulged in the hope of returning through gates of blood or by creating such atmospheres. To stick a bomb to a citizen's car or park a boobytrapped car in a public square has nothing to do with manhood. This is our enemy. When it is so fierce and immoral, such acts take place. This is what they call a breached security."
He adds: "Thanks to the zeal of the men and fighters of the sons of the Armed Forces, police, security forces, and citizens, Al-Fadl area was reopened, the Haifa Street is restored, Al-Ghazaliyah has returned, and the situation in all Baghdad areas has returned to normal. The displaced people have also returned home. This is the main element and the main axis in the security strategy, which has been achieved."
He says: "After terrorism and the terrorists have become unable to occupy one inch of the land of Iraq to establish camps, prisons, training centres on it, and education and cultural centres, which advocate rancour, sectarianism, and hatred, we have become in front of a new development. The previous course will continue. The strategy does not change completely, as those who are ignorant of the security process, say. The strategy will remain there; the military, police, and army forces will continue to be there; the checkpoints will remain there; and pursuits and storming campaigns will continue. However, there is a constant part in the strategy and the plan and there is a moving part. We began to reactivate the moving part of the strategic military plan, which is based on the security and intelligence effort, by forming a joint coordination committee for the security and intelligence agencies, by reactivating the citizens' role, and by reactivating the security directorates and institutions at the security ministries. This is because terrorism has now remained as hidden elements and cells, which require information to arrest them and fill prisons of them same as the streets were full of them when they used to resist the police and the army. Therefore, this is the moving part of the strategic theory, which all sides should understand."
Al-Maliki adds: "There have been painful blows to the Al-Qa'idah and Ba'th Party organizations. However, their internal instructions prevented their supporters from talking about these blows and arrests, which are continuing, and which will continue until we exhaust all their efforts. Regrettably, however, breaches will continue here and there. We hope that the relationship between the citizens and the security agencies will be promoted significantly in order to achieve the required goals. The Council of Ministers yesterday made decisions, which include giving a grant and a gift to anyone who guides to a boobytrapped car. The value of the grant and the gift totals 100 million dinars.
"These are some of the measures, and there are other measures. Here, however, I would like to speak clearly and frankly and say that the security work, plans, strategies, and any piece of information related to security are not allowed to anyone who wants to speak about this issue. The thing, which the states care for more than anything else, is their military and security secrets."
He says: "Battles erupt among states when someone attempts to breach the military establishment to obtain some information. However, very regrettably, at this stage, and frankly, for some reasons and political and election propaganda purposes, the security information was seized. Thus, this has rendered a great service to the enemy to the effect that it now has information about numbers, plans, funds, problems, weakness, and strength. It exploits the weakness and knows how to evade strength. This has happened. It is regrettable and painful. The whole world is now astonished at how the Iraqis talk about their security and security institutions in this way, which is open to the media."
Al-Maliki says that the Council of Representatives "has the right to summon and interrogate" others. However, he adds, the objective is to "reach results and not to divulge secrets." He says: "Regarding the security aspect in particular, the Security and Defence Committee [of the Council of Representative] should be the side that assumes this responsibility. It should meet with the security officials to discuss with them plans and methods and reach agreements with them away from the media. This is because the media should not talk about security. Regrettable, this has become one of the main issues in the news media and the space channels, even the Iraqi media. They now host this and that, and the politicians, both those who have something to do and those have not anything to do with the process. They speak, defame, divulge what they know, and confuse the Iraqi citizen. I call on the Iraqi citizen to trust the security and military agencies. This effort is continuing and escalating. Despite the fact that the challenge is big and serious, there will be no retreat. We will never reach a situation in which we have a missing security, as some sides say, but what we talk about here are terrorist cells and about how we should eliminate them through cooperation and openness between the security agencies and citizens.
"I also tell all partners in the political process, as I have previously said, that they should not be indifferent to this issue. You can talk about any issue, economy, agriculture, industry, and education. However, you should be cautious when you talk about security activity. You should recall how Iraq was, and how we used to reap the effects of the hateful sectarianism, which some state institutions used to feed, and how people were beheaded in the streets. Do not belittle this issue. This is because, it will return, and if it returns, it will not benefit those who believe that through confusion, they can achieve victory or obtain a vote here and another there. Let us put the higher interests and the blood of Iraqi citizens above one-upmanship and elections. Compete with each other, providing competition is legitimate, but competition should not take place at the expense of the Iraqi blood and security, which, if was lost again, may God forbid, no one would benefit from this. What was achieved for the citizens, in terms of relaxation, joy, happiness, communication, and openness, would also be lost. Thus, all the political forces will be responsible for this if they do not live up to their responsibilities."
Al-Maliki calls on the citizens and the political forces to appreciate the "great achievements" of the police, security, and army forces. He adds that these "segments, which offered tens of thousands of martyrs to provide us with this security and life, should not be targeted."
He says: "I also address states and call on all of them to support Iraq, and not Iraq only, but all the states, which experience such crisis of fighting terrorism. These states should adopt a responsible position, just as all sides confront the dangers of epidemics, Swine Flu and other diseases. Terrorism is more dangerous than Swine Flu. All sides should do this. Some sides should not stand idly watching and other sides should not provide facilities to these [terrorist]."
He adds: "This is in order to pursue our path, strategy, and course. I insist on the carefully planned policy, which the world has admitted. To those who say that there is no strategy, I say that an institute for military academic studies has put the Iraqi experience on fighting terrorism with all its dimensions as one of its studies on the qualitative experience of confronting the fiercest form of terrorism in a new state, which emerged from dictatorship and entered into the presence of international forces, terrorist invasion, and elements affiliated with the buried regime."
Al-Maliki says: "Once again, brothers, I say, compete with each other and we will compete with you, but put security aside and put the Iraqis' blood aside. Let the country achieve stability in order to arrive at the stage of reconstruction, building, services, stability, and relaxation, which the citizens should get. The Iraqis have become tired. Since 1980, they have been experiencing wars, adventures, occupation, terrorism, oppression, killing, Al-Anfal, chemical weapons, and mass graves. Let the Iraqis relax. Brothers, you should all live up to your responsibilities, media men and politicians. You should take this fact into consideration. This is because the result will not affect one party without the other, but it will affect the entire temple, which will collapse on those under it once again, as I have previously said. However, I stress that with the zeal of the sons of the Armed Forces, police, and the security forces, we will not allow this temple to collapse, and we will not allow anyone to destroy the temple once again, through which Iraq and the Iraqis have restored their honour. We will take measures to protect the achievements that have been made on the political, security, and economic levels and in all fields."
Concluding his statement, Al-Maliki adds: "I address my messages to all those who are concerned about Iraq, of the sons of the Armed Forces, citizens, political forces, and state institutions, and tell them to cooperate with us within this framework because it is a red line and tampering with it means tampering with the issues that are directly related to public interests and to the citizens' life."
Al-Maliki then begins to take press questions.
Answering a question to the effect that some sides "confuse" the deteriorating security situation with the "breached security," and whether the security incidents "affect the withdrawal of the US forces based on the agreement" between the two sides, Al-Maliki says: "Breached security exists in the whole world, but on different levels. America, with all its superiority, means, and capabilities, its security was breached. It was breached in the Trade Centre towers and in other incidents. With all its powers, Russia's security was breached a few days ago and more than 100 persons were killed. The security of all the region's states was also breached. This includes all the neighbouring states without exception. I do not want to mention names so that it will not be said this is defamation against their security. All the neighbouring states' security was breached. However, breaches have various dimensions and vary from one country to another. In Iraq, the citizen used to live in the quagmire of terrorism, and you are witnesses to what Iraq was. Therefore, the security breaches could be more than in other states in the region and the world. We work on this through intelligence activity and cooperation with the citizens to arrest these [terrorists] and to put them in prisons."
He adds: "As whether such incident would affect the [US forces'] withdrawal, I say no, not at all. Final arrangements have been made on withdrawal and based on clear timetables. You always hear us emphasize commitment to all clauses and timetables. The US side has always announced on the highest level that it is committed to the agreement and to withdrawal from Iraq."
Answering another question on the "moving part" of the security strategy, Al-Maliki says: "Regarding the moving part of the security strategy, I do not mean that we will begin to implement it, but we have begun to implement it since we received the security file on 30 June and the beginning of the implementation of the agreement on 1 January 2009. We have moved in this direction, and I do not want to mention the number of the terrorist cells, which have been arrested, thanks to the reactivation of the intelligence activity. Big cells and dangerous persons have been arrested. Furthermore, big crimes, which were committed in the past and whose perpetrators were not revealed, have now been revealed and the perpetrators were arrested."
Answering an indistinct question on "interference" by the neighbouring states, "specifically Syria," Al-Maliki says: "Yes, there is still interference. This is despite the fact that it should retreat, and it has retreated from many states, but it is still there by some states. We hope [it will retreat]. We play a role and hold contacts to convince the others and to tell them that you have no interest in sending weapons or giving a chance to killers and terrorists, who, if they can, they will turn against you once again."
Answering a question to the effect that some news agencies and space channels carried "conflicting" statements by the prime minister and the government's official spokesman on the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization, whether this organization will "be moved to the outskirts of Baghdad or to outside Baghdad, and whether this is a prelude to moving it outside the country," Al-Maliki says: "This organization has a bad history in Iraq. It has committed crimes against the Iraqis. The former regime has used it as a security agency. It has committed massacres during Friday prayers in Kifri and Kalar against the Kurds. In the records of many of the world states, it is accused as a terrorist organization. Based on our constitution, policy, and approach, we will never turn Iraq into a headquarters or a passageway for any terrorist organization."
He adds: "Our policy and constitution do not allow us to host any side that causes a crisis with any state in the world. Therefore, we have prevented many sides, which sought to use Iraq as a springboard against Arab states, and we told them that we would never allow this. Based on these introductions, background, and history, and out of protecting Iraq's unity, security, and sovereignty, this organization has no place in Iraq. These are only preliminary measures to end their existence. We spoke with the world states and told them that we welcome anyone who wants to host them. We will not force this organization to return to Iran or to extradite it to it, but we will not allow an organization, which is accused of terrorism, to stay in Iraq. I do not think there was any contradiction in statements. Moving them from this camp is a prelude to moving them to outside Iraq and to any state that would accept them, or perhaps if they benefit from any pardon, which the Iranian Government would offer them."
Answering a question on his coming visit to Egypt, and whether "this time around" he will go to "persuade Egypt to play a role in persuading some neighbouring states to stop financing some terrorist sides and entering boobytrapped cars," and whether "you will give an olive branch and receive boobytrapped cars," Al-Maliki says: "I do not think Egypt is a party to this operation."
The reporter says: "I do not mean Egypt specifically."
Al-Maliki says: "As for the visit, you are aware of Egypt's weight, role, and status among Arab states. Relations between Egypt and Iraq and the Egyptian and Iraqi peoples are good and deep-rooted. These relations have made great steps after the arrival a delegation of business and companies, led by the Egyptian investment minister. Some 80 companies have come to Iraq, held conferences, and acquainted themselves of the situation." He then speaks about his previous visits and those of Iraqi officials to Egypt and the joint committee that was formed between the two countries to develop relations in various fields.
Al-Maliki adds: "My visit is to entrench and promote these relations and to reactivate the agreements, which were signed between Egypt and Iraq. This is because we very much want to have strong and developed relations that could serve as an example of relations among Arab states."
On whether there are "differences" between the prime minister and Interior Minister Jawad al-Bulani, and on Al-Maliki's opinion about the "performance" of the interior minister, Al-Maliki says that under a democratic and national unity government, dialogue or different viewpoints between two persons should not be interpreted as "confrontation." He says: "The relationship between me and the interior minister is a good and brotherly relationship. The man listens and cooperates." He adds: "I can assure you that the prime minister's relationship with all other ministers is good."
A reporter asks the following question: "Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Mu'allim made a statement, through which he sounded triumphant because Iraq does not have evidence on Syria's interference in Iraq. Does this mean that the US envoy has not obtained concrete evidence from the Iraqi side on the Syrian interference?"
Answering this question, Al-Maliki says that Iraq has provided "concrete evidence." He adds: "However, this is a natural policy. Everyone defends himself through denial. To complete my answer to your question, I say that we do not want bad relations with Syria. We do not want to make lies against Syria because we have no interest in this. We do not pursue the policy of blaming other states. We talk about facts and we pursued a policy of improving our relations with Syria, Jordan, Iran, Turkey, and all other states in order to eliminate any differences or disagreement that this issue could create. Any statement we make is not because we like to strain any relations with any other state, but this is in defence of the Iraqi blood and right. The other side should understand this. I hope that the other side will put himself in the place of the Iraqis. If what is happening in Iraq happens in a neighbouring state, in terms of killing, bombings, and terrorism, providing that they knew that a certain person has passed through Iraq and that we did not cooperate with this person, establish a camp for him, train him, or arm him, but he has just passed from here and gone to them, what would they say? Definitely, they will hold us responsible. This is the norm among states. Therefore, how would it be if this involves camps, training, and media, which speak openly, and statements on all levels? It is only natural that we have the right to defend our people's interests."
Answering a question that after every bombing, some Iraqi politicians "hasten" to blame the security forces and the government, Al-Maliki says that "tragedies" should unite all sides. He adds: "The problem today, however, is that we are heading to the elections. Therefore, they believe that they would be supporting the government's electoral position if they unite with it. Very regrettably, the elections constitute a part of the relationship among the political forces. Therefore, this is a strange thing. I have addressed my message to all brothers in all political entities to unite to face the challenge."
He says: "If some sides, which are still playing a role, in any way, in supporting terrorism, we will not stop talking about this then. In fact, we will take the necessary measures and not talking only. We do not talk about issues only, but we take the appropriate measures to deter all those who tamper with the security of Iraq and its citizens."
Lina Abd-al-Jabbar, from the Jordanian newspaper Al-Dustur asks: "We know that Saudi Arabia is the only state, which you have not visited continuously. There is a talk about political barriers. When will Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki break this barrier?"
Answering this question, Al-Maliki says: "When Saudi Arabia welcomes good relations with Iraq we will break the [barrier] once again. I have broken it at the beginning and I will break it again if Saudi Arabia wants so."
Answering a question on whether the "security breaches are aimed at preventing the current government from assuming power in Iraq once again," Al-Maliki says: "Democracy is the target, the political process is the target, and everyone in this political process is targeted. Preventing this government [from assuming power once again] is the goal, foiling democracy is a goal, and foiling media and political freedoms is a goal. The entire political process is targeted." He adds: "The elections will inevitably take place on the set date no matter how much efforts the terrorists will make to obstruct them." He says that we will spare no effort to prevent anything that would obstruct the elections, "taking into consideration that the real battle between us and the [terrorists] is the holding of the elections, and therefore, I hope that the citizens, political forces, and security agencies will pool their efforts to hold the elections because this will deal a blow to the heart of all those who reject democracy and the political process in the country."
Answering a question on whether any of the "political sides or parties that participate in the political process are involved in supporting the terrorist groups during the recent bombings," Al-Maliki says: "No, not in the recent bombings. However, you know that when sectarianism was at its peak, and when everyone used to call for supporting his sect and group, many sides were involved. They should have not spoken about sectarianism in the first place. As for the recent incidents, we do not have any information about the involvement of any political entity or side. This is the positive thing here; namely, that such operations are only carried out by the terrorists and the Ba'thists. We are talking about what happened in the past. God willing, this will not return because this was one of the prerequisites of sectarianism and tension. All sides believed that some sides can twist the arm of the other side, but all sides realized that no one can twist the other side's arm because Iraq is the loser, and that Iraq and all Iraqis will succeed when all sides unite."
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