USA

Official American version of events at Camp Ashraf

2009 Human Rights Report: Iraq

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborThere were allegations during the year that some of the 3,400 members of the MEK terrorist organization located at Ashraf were denied the right to leave under threat of reprisal from MEK leaders
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices

(…)

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life
…

On July 28, clashes erupted at Ashraf in Diyala Province when the ISF attempted to establish a police presence inside the more than 3,400-person compound of the terrorist Iranian dissident group Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). The clashes resulted in the deaths of 11 MEK members and injuries to 30 ISF officers. The government credibly claimed the MEK provoked the clashes by staging a violent demonstration to block the ISF from entering the compound.
(…)

d. Freedom of Movement, Internally Displaced Persons, Protection of Refugees, and Stateless Persons
…

There were allegations during the year that some of the 3,400 members of the MEK terrorist organization located at Ashraf were denied the right to leave under threat of reprisal from MEK leaders. These allegations were corroborated by several former Ashraf residents who had fled the camp. Individuals claimed to have been subjected to psychological and physical abuse, including threats of reprisal against family members and solitary confinement in Ashraf to discourage defections.
…

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Human Rights Abuse in the MEK

Mojahedin Khalq, Woman and Freedom

Of the wonders is that in MKO, considering itself the prototype of a utopia and the perspective of a favored society, women are exploited as maidservants who have to feel proud of the endowed virtue. More surprisingly, of the main slogans of the organization is freedom of women from historical injustice and oppressions they have long been suffering through a variety of phases in the framework of a strategic and ideological struggle. This is possible only in an ideological organization like MKO and under the leadership of a person like Masoud Rajavi.

In Maryam Rajavi’s delivered message for the woman’s day (March, 8), an old habit to voice her cliché slogans of defending women rights and freedom, she repeats the old words while according to all separated female members of MKO, women are suffering from the worst sexual, mental, and physical abuses and oppressions inside MKO. Perhaps, before the split of those like Batool Soltani, a member of the Leadership Council of Mojahedin, no one could even imagine the wide aspects of the medieval inequalities and oppressions imposed on female members inside the organization. What is referred to in the statements made by these women is that the organization practices a kind of modern and systematic slavery system.

What is mainly focused by separated female members of MKO is the paradox between the outside slogans of the organization on women and the ideological reality that threatens women inside organization with victimization, exploitation, and slavery much worse than the medieval exploitative and abusive relations. While in the old times they prepared a breeding ground for women’s sexual and physical exploitation of the most unenlightened variety, in MKO relations, they are misused in many more modern and novel forms of mental and psychological mistreatment. The fact is that the concept of freedom is defined by the organization in a way that fails to differentiate between men and women. According to Rajavi, freedom for a Mojahed, male or female, is not materialized unless s/he undergoes an all-out obedience, submission, and slavery toward the leadership.

This viewpoint is to be investigated from two angles. First, the ideological aspects of this idea turn a free individual to an ideological and aggressive lever in the hands of the ideological leader and secondly, it may make a member as the slave of another one like Rajavi. The first state remind us of those like Neda Hassani who set herself on fire and the instances of the latter are the female members of the Leadership Council. These two seemingly different strata are in fact the upshot of the same ideology which has its roots in full obedience and indetermination toward leadership. How MKO as an amalgam of the most oppressive reactionary systems and the most complicated and modern slavery systems based on brainwashing can claim to be the pioneer of defending women rights is not clarified. The fact is that Rajavi makes use of the apparent instances of inequality and oppression of women in modern as well as underdeveloped countries and makes eye-catching slogans toinitiate a propaganda blitz to attract the attention of outsiders who consider him as a defender of women.

Unfortunately, the westerners usually resort to what is stated overtly rather than what is done covertly by Mojahedin. Perhaps, they can never imagine that behind the laughing and friendly visage of Maryam Rajavi as well as her popular slogans on the women rights, there is a monster who looks at human, and women in particular, as crones for misleading others. They may never believe that Rajavi regards woman as an obsession that is to be controlled by reminding her of her historical past. The ideological leadership of Mojehedin considers women as worthless beings to be exposed to suffering and hard training to the point that their sex cannot be identified; it is only their appearance that differentiates them from their male comrades, inside they are rough people losing natural, womanish delicacies altogether. Unlike the western campaigners, Masoud Rajavi is not after defending women’s rights; He is to eliminate the freedom leftover for women and replace it with an ideological model fully obedient to his self-fabricated ideology. Surprisingly enough, Rajavi believes that the rights given to women so far are in fact barriers that distance them from their ideological potentials that turns them into ordinary beings. Her ideal woman has to submit to Rajavi ignoring all her social achievements in recent centuries.

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Missions of Nejat Society

Foreign journalists visit Nejat Society members in Shiraz

Following the arrival of a number of foreign journalists and reporters to cover the report on the conference to address nuclear disarmament held by IRI in Tehran, they traveled to Shiraz on April 20th, 2010 a number of victims of Mujahedin’s terrorist activities and some members of Nejat Society Shiraz branch visited the journalists.

During the visit, the families of victims of Rajavi’s cult offered their testimonies describing the crimes MEK committed against them. They asked the journalists to voice the Iranians’ call to protest against Western support for MEK. They condemned the West’s double standard towards the terrorist MEK Cult.

The members of Nejat Society described the manipulative techniques used by the cult to deceive their family members or their ex-comrades in Camp Ashraf. They seriously condemned the MEK’s crimes and the Western politicians who support MEK.

During the visit the journalists were invited to watch some videos on MEK crimes which impressed them seriously so that they offered their sympathy to those victims of terror .

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Mujahedin Khalq Organization

Are Ashraf Residents “Protected Person”?

On Friday, April 16, 2010 the news published on the MKO websites mentioned prior clashes in Camp Ashraf. Once again, the MKO is using a propaganda campaign to spread an expired pretext—that MKO residents are "Protected Persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Previously the MKO used this argument following the 2009 clash in which the MKO clearly exhibited their deep rooted terrorist tactics by using Molotov cocktails and rocks to execute hostilities against the Iraqi forces led by the legitimate Iraqi government.

The claim made by the MKO about their "Protected Persons" status and whether or not the status applies to Camp Ashraf residents is up for debate. Article Four of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines "Protected Person" as “those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.” Article Four furthers that, “Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.” [1]

Earlier in the decade, in July 2004, In July 2004, the MKO forces in Ashraf were declared by the US to be ‘protected persons’ under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (rather than military personnel under the Third Geneva Convention), 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. [2]

In addition, the ICRC noted that, due to UNSCR 1546, the conflict in Iraq would no longer be a war between states; hence, the Geneva Conventions would no longer apply. It argued that customary international humanitarian law govern non-international conflicts; hence, continuing to apply the Geneva Conventions to the MKO would be legally incorrect.[3]

On February 9th, 2010 in a debate in the House of Lords of the UK Parliament on the case of Camp Ashraf, Iraq, Barroness Falkoner of Margavine asked her colleague if the Minister will confirm that these people are not non-protected persons under the Geneva Convention. Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead responded [to] the question by insisting that "any claim to protected persons status by Camp Ashraf residents under the Fourth Geneva Convention has ceased to apply. That view is shared by the United Nations. The Camp leadership have been given that information. [4]

Notwithstanding, the MKO still tries to deceive public opinion by the fake claim that Ashraf residents are “Protected Persons” under the Geneva Convention, and yet all significant international bodies believe that the rule does not apply to MEK members anymore.

[1] "International Humanitarian Law – Treaties & Documents." International Committee of the Red Cross. ICRC, 2005. Web. 29 Apr 2010. <http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/380?opendocument>.

[2] Thorp, Arabella. " In Brief: Camp Ashraf and the Geneva Conventions”. LIBRARY HOUSE OF COMMONS: Standard Note 20 MAR 2009, page 2. Web. 29 Apr 2010.

[3] Goulka, Jeremiah, Lydia Hansell, Elizabeth Wilke, and Judith Larson. "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum." RAND NATIONAL DEFENCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (2009): P.21. Web. 29 Apr 2010.

[4] Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead, Baroness Falkner of Margravine. "United Kingdom Parliament.” Parliamentary Business. UK Parliament, Tuesday, 9 February 2010. Web. 29 Apr 2010. <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100209-0001.htm>.

By: Mazda Parsi

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
MEK Camp Ashraf

Violent reaction of MEK to the families trying to visit their children

Film showing the violent reaction of Mojahedin-e Khalq to the families trying to visit their children who are being held captive inside the camp by the Rajavis.Film showing the violent reaction of Mojahedin-e Khalq to the families trying to visit their children

This report is a short, logical addition to the mountain of statements which the MEK have issued in recent days. It has been published to further apprise those interested in this issue of what has taken place.

What was it that the MEK was after when they attacked the families?

What was it that the MEK was after when they attacked the families?

One basic fact shouts louder than all others and that is, that for 66 days the MEK leaders have refused all access to the victims inside the camp. The MEK leaders did not let the families see their children even for a minute. It is also clear that the MEK began the attack and that they had planned and coordinated it with all the MEK’s systems ready to play their parts, in particular the MEK’s relentless propaganda system – resulting in the mountain of statements.

 

The families have been waiting for many weeks in front of the gates of the camp to see their children. The MEK leaders have obdurately refused them access. The families became so desperate to make contact that they started speaking over loud speakers so they would be noticed by the people inside. Their motivation has been to try to let their children know that they are there
.

The families have a clear message for all: They will not leave without their children.

The MEK is facing a serious problem in keeping its members people under control. They are doing everything to stop them hearing the voices of the families, and to stop them from escaping.

After Iman’s escape, the leaders increased the checkpoints inside the camp and have implemented restrictive laws to prevent people from escaping.

The leaders now know that they can no longer control every disaffected person – and there are many, many of them in the camp. And they now know that the families have no intention of moving from the gates of the camp.

The families report that they are very happy to have news that Mojahedin leader Maryam Rajavi has been writing to the UN, so that someone there will be forced to take notice of their problems. They are waiting eagerly to see why it is that the UN does not take any action against the MEK’s hostage-taking terrorist leaders who are backed by some murderers in America and Israel.

The families have a clear message for all: They will not leave without their children. They also warn that other families are also on their way.

Download On MKO attack on the families at Ashraf Gates – Part 1
Download On MKO attack on the families at Ashraf Gates – Part 2

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Habilian Foundation

Permanent exhibition over MKO crimes in Eternal Light Operation

Over 200 thousands of visitors have visited Habilian Association (families of terror victims) permanent exhibition over evil terrorist nature and the crimes Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (a.k.a MKO, MEK, NCRI, PMOI…) has so far committed in Iran and abroad.

Revealing Mujahedins’ long history of violence and terror the exhibition also indicates their treasonous role during Iraq-Iran war and their alliance with Saddam Hussein

This exhibition which was last year held by Habilian Association for the enlightenment of the visitors of MKO crimes draws to the attention of the viewers different aspects of MKO crimes in Iran and Iraq as well as many other countries around the world.

Over 200 thousands of visitors have visited Habilian Association (families of terror victims) permanent exhibition over evil terrorist nature and the crimes MKO has so far committed in Iran and abroad

Revealing Mujahedins’ long history of violence and terror the exhibition also indicates their treasonous role during Iraq-Iran war and their alliance with Saddam Hussein while fighting against their own people. It also concerns with the cult-like lives of MKO members, their internal relations, complicated brainwashing and manipulation system within the cult, the rank and file members’ compulsory divorces, MKO propaganda system and their role in the after- the-elections unrests in Iran as well as a full list of over 16000 terror victims mostly assassinated by the MKO terrorist cult.

Revealing Mujahedins’ long history of violence and terror the exhibition also indicates their treasonous role during Iraq-Iran war and their alliance with Saddam Hussein

Another purpose of the exhibition is to keep alive the memory of Mersad operation in which MKO was severely defeated while trying to attack Iran and to make especially the youth know better their enemies.

Over 200 thousands of visitors have visited Habilian Association (families of terror victims) permanent exhibition over evil terrorist nature and the crimes MKO has so far committed in Iran and abroad

After the acceptance of resolution 598 by Iran and in an operation the MKO called the eternal light the Mujahedin which were armed to the teeth and fully backed by Saddam Hussein’s regime invaded Iran regardless of international laws; but were mostly killed by the Iranian defense forces.

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
MEK Camp Ashraf

Report on the MKO attack on the families on Thursday night

Report on the Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK) attack on the families on Thursday night 14th April, 2010 in front of camp New Iraq (formerly Ashraf)

This report is a short, logical addition to the mountain of statements which the MEK have issued in recent days. It has been published to further apprise those interested in this issue of what has taken place.Report on the Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK) attack on the families

What was it that the MEK was after when they attacked the families?

One basic fact shouts louder than all others and that is, that for 66 days the MEK leaders have refused all access to the victims inside the camp. The MEK leaders did not let the families see their children even for a minute. It is also clear that the MEK began the attack and that they had planned and coordinated it with all the MEK’s systems ready to play their parts, in particular the MEK’s relentless propaganda system – resulting in the mountain of statements.

The families have been waiting for many weeks in front of the gates of the camp to see their children. The MEK leaders have obdurately refused them access. The families became so desperate to make contact that they started speaking over loud speakers so they would be noticed by the people inside. Their motivation has been to try to let their children know that they are there.

From last week, the families decided to expose the activities of the MEK leaders by reading out loud the interviews of Ms. Batool Soltani (a former member of the Leadership Council). The MEK leaders objected and complained to the Iraqis that the families are insulting them over the loud speakers. As evidence they referred to the Soltani interviews. The leader of the Iraqi security forces made enquiries with the families, who then submitted a copy of the Soltani interviews to him in Arabic.

The MEK have opened a so-called hospital in front of the gates which they call “The Hospital No. 2”. Only the trusted leaders and members of the cult are allowed to go in and out of this place. Even so, the reading aloud of the Soltani interviews has had some effect on them, and some have been communicating with the families with their hands and with various other signals, and in this way have actually encouraged the families to continue and not to give up.

In an inspired move, the families had the idea to broadcast the sound of laughter of a two year old child into the camp. The members have not heard such a voice for decades. It made some of them, who were allowed to be near the gate, smile. This was also noticed by the MEK leaders and has shaken them.

Three days ago, Mr. Iman Yeganeh Khorasani from Mashad, after 22 years, drove his lorry (which he works with) up to the gates of the camp and handed himself over to the Iraqi security forces. He later came to visit the families.

Iman told Iran-Interlink, “Just before the Norooz (New Year) holidays the leader of section one started insulting the families. I asked, ‘Why are you insulting the families’? He told me, ‘They have been sent by the Iranian regime’. I said, ‘Even if this was true, this would not give you reason to swear at these people. Would you swear at them even if my family was among them?’ At that point I told them that I refuse to stay there".

Iman continued, “They started to arrange a few brainwashing sessions for me, but when they realised that I still refused to stay, they pleaded with me, ‘Stay until the end of Norooz because you have given your word and you have to keep your promise".

“A few days before Norooz they started to extract new promises from the members again to say that they would stay until next Norooz. I had no choice but to run away from the camp. But the problem is that the leaders do not allow anyone to go anywhere by themselves, or do anything by themselves, or even walk around in the camp".

He described his escape; “Yesterday, I was sitting in the lorry waiting for the second person to arrive. In the few minutes that he was delayed, I took my chance. I started the lorry and drove to the Iraqi post and asked for asylum and protection.”

Iman told Iran-Interlink, “The MEK leaders have been brainwashing the members against the Iraqis so they are really afraid of approaching the Iraqi officers. But I was even prepared to be killed by the Iraqi army rather than staying one more day in Rajavi’s garrison. When I realised how kind and human the Iraqis are, I was really ashamed of myself.”

Since Iman’s escape, the Mojahedin no longer allow rank and file members to carry out any maintenance or service work. The leaders are now doing all the work. For example, the leaders of each section now sweep the outside pavements themselves at nights.

The MEK is facing a serious problem in keeping its members people under control. They are doing everything to stop them hearing the voices of the families, and to stop them from escaping.
After Iman’s escape, the leaders increased the checkpoints inside the camp and have implemented restrictive laws to prevent people from escaping.
The leaders now know that they can no longer control every disaffected person – and there are many, many of them in the camp. And they now know that the families have no intention of moving from the gates of the camp.

It is this deadlock which forced the MEK to try to repeat the scenario of July 2009 and this time blame the families for the violence.

On Thursday morning they started clandestinely placing loud speakers about 100 meters away from the camp gates. From about 10.30 pm that day, they brought together around 200 people who started swearing at the families using the very powerful loud speakers. They then began to try to incite the families who were behind the closed gates to respond with violence.

Clearly, this kind of provocative attack aimed at the 11 family members outside the gate was intended to somehow engage the Iraqi security forces and provoke violence so that the MKO could cast itself in the role of victim – that is, 3500 people the victims of 11 families. At about 1.30 in the morning, the families, acting on the advice of the Iraqi security officers, retired to their makeshift beds. Without warning, two MEK women members appeared from out of nowhere with the intention of launching an attack on them with knives. Fortunately, they were intercepted by the Iraqis and were prevented from starting any violence or carrying out their assassination attempt.

The MKO continued to swear at the families over their loud speakers until 3.00 am. Then they broadcast an audio tape of the MEK military march ‘Victory’ on a loop, and threatened that they will do more and worse things to the families if they do not leave the gates of the camp.

On Friday morning, the families again gathered at the camp gates with good moral. That night they hung coloured bulbs and lights all over the gate of the camp celebrating the “victory” of the MEK leaders the night before. Their slogan, which they chanted that day, was, “You continue your war and victories and we will continue our persistence with singing and celebrating”.

Of course, as expected, the MEK is claiming that the Iraqi forces and the families have attacked them. It is interesting that, while they continue to film every second, day and night, they have not presented a single clip of film to show this alleged attack. Iran-Interlink did, however, record some film that day, which will be broadcast in due course. This film will first be presented to the UN office, the Iraqi Judiciary and relevant human rights organisations.

The knife wielding Mojahed woman has been identified and the families concerned are already in the process of submitting a law suit against her.

The families report that they are very happy to have news that Mojahedin leader Maryam Rajavi has been writing to the UN, so that someone there will be forced to take notice of their problems. They are waiting eagerly to see why it is that the UN does not take any action against the MEK’s hostage-taking terrorist leaders who are backed by some murderers in America and Israel.

The families have a clear message for all: They will not leave without their children. They also warn that other families are also on their way.

The families also wish to thank all the people, across the globe, who have given them support and encouragement.
Iran Interlink, at the gates of camp New Iraq (Ashraf)

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
The MEK and Jundullah

Mojahedin in support of Rigi

The MKO as well as its official sites and media have supported Rigi openly calling him the leader of a democratic movement and now after a while, entrusted their covering sites and sub organizations with the task. In this regard, the sites of “Didgah” and “Aftabkaran” are representing the position takings and viewpoints of the organization toward Rigi’s arrest. For instance, the article titled “Rigi’s arrest and unseen relieves” by Javad Shafaei in Aftabkaran as well as “Warning, Necessity” by M. Akhlaqi in Didgah can be referred to. Both these articles make an attempt to consider the detention of this notorious terrorist as a warning and also a global jobbery of intelligent services of the US, England, and Pakistan. Moreover, they appreciate Mojahedin for supporting him and denouncing his seizure. Surprisingly enough, they refer to Rigi as the leader of an armed overthrowing opposition:

Whatever the idea of Rigi, the guerilla fighter, he said no to the regime through the most scathing language, i.e. gun.

This open support of Rigi comes by MKO while according to its official sites, the US and England have denied any cooperation with Rigi clarifying their position toward his terrorist actions. Disregarding the truth or falsehood of their claim, the significant point is that even these superpowers show reluctant to defend Rigi’s brutal terrorist activities due to his inexpressible barbarization. However, Mojahedin are to connect themselves to Rigi and his fugitive homicides as much as possible and introduce a pathological terrorist as an opposition against the Iranian government. The western and European advocators of the organization are to answer this question: how an armed group can make its utmost efforts through lobbying to be removed from the terrorist list of the US and other countries and at the same time it supports Abdolmalik Rigi? The US has to come to answer this question too due to giving political refuge to Mojahedin and also supporting them as prisoners of war in Iraq misusing international conventions. Mojahedin support Rigi overtly at a time when no opposition dares to support him.

The western sympathizers of Mojahedin have to answer what is the relationship between decapitating and spraying a number of hostages, even if related to Iranian government, and their slogans of fighting for freedom and democracy and demanding for the ethnic and religious rights of nations. Moreover, what is the relation between this terrorist and an opposition group like Mojahedin that constantly suggests a third democratic solution to confront its challenges. Their supporting Rigi means legitimizing any brutal and wicked action like that imposed on Muslim Bosnians in the world. It is equal to defending Rigi’s fellows to follow his path. In other words, despite all their trickery and demagogic slogans on democracy, Mojahedin try to destabilize the atmosphere of Iran in different ways like inciting the civil remonstrations by the interference of their terrorist agents as well as supporting Rigi and his shameful actions for organizing and enrolling his terrorist advocators and followers. Now the EU is to be ashamed of removing the name of MKO from its terrorist list. Moreover, the act of the EU court on removing the name of MKO from terrorist list due to the point that they denounced terrorist activity or support for any terrorist group or since February 2001 is meaningless.

The way Mojahedin denounce the detention of Rigi at the time being may imply that they are likely to support Bin Laden and Al-Qaede in the future if they were put behind bars by means of the justifications made in support of Rigi and his terrorist fellows and may accuse the US and England for arresting a notorious terrorist as well. The western and even the European parliamentarians and advocators of MKO avoid supporting Rigi. It means that they do not bear the terrorist reign of a group like Rigi on Iranians despite their opposition toward the Iranian regime. It is not clear how they can ignore and justify the act of Mojahedin in supporting Rigi. Can they accept the responsibility of the atrocities caused if in the future Rigi and his supporter, Mojahedin, rise to power? The fact is that the main achievement of Rigi’s seizure was that the real aggressive and liar visage of Mojahedin claiming to be after the accomplishment of democracy and human rights was uncovered once more and those supporting MKO came to the point that they will be the first victims of the organization if Mojahedin get to a position of political or military power.

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
UK

UK: No evidence of intimidation or harassment in the Camp Ashraf

Iraq: Camp Ashraf
Column 604

Asked By Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
UK: No evidence of intimidation or harassment in the Camp Ashraf
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to defend the human rights of Iranian refugees at Camp Ashraf; and with what other countries or agencies they are involved in those efforts.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead): My Lords, officials at our embassy in Baghdad and at the Foreign Office follow developments at Camp Ashraf closely. We have raised Camp Ashraf with the Iraqi Prime Minister, the Human Rights Minister, the Minister of Internal Affairs and, recently, my ministerial colleague Ivan Lewis with the Foreign Minister, to remind them of the need to deal with the residents in a way which meets international humanitarian standards. We are in contact with international partners and UN agencies. Camp Ashraf is part of a sovereign and democratic Iraq and is primarily an issue for the Iraqi authorities to address.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Do they care that currently Camp Ashraf residents are being denied food, medicine and winter fuel, and live under a real threat of being moved by Nouri al-Maliki’s troops-

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: I can confirm that we consistently remind the Iraqi Government of all their international obligations on this matter. The Iraqi Ministers confirm that the Government are in discussions with the camp leadership and that they will treat the people in the camp in line with international humanitarian law. There is absolutely no evidence of the kind of intimidation and harassment which the noble Lord has described. Indeed, the access to food and medicines, to clean water and medical supplies, clearly exists. There have been some disruptions to supplies entering the camp, but I understand that all those have been resolved.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: Does my noble friend accept that to deliver the refugees into the hands of the Iranian regime would, for some of them at least, be the equivalent of a death sentence? Does she further accept that the attack on Camp Ashraf by Iraqi forces in July, leaving 11 dead, establishes that it cannot safely be left in Iraqi hands? Is this not a matter that we should discuss with our American allies?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: I can assure my noble and learned friend that these matters are regularly raised by our ambassador and others with the United Nations and with the authorities in Iraq. It is the long-stated wish of the Iraqi authorities to close the camp and transfer the residents, but they have given us clear assurances, most recently at a meeting on 27 January, that they will do that in line with international and humanitarian law and that no Ashraf residents will be forcibly transferred to a country where they have reason to fear persecution or where substantial grounds exist to believe that they could be tortured.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is very important that we should be clear about the responsibility for this matter? Is it not right that back on 13 April last year, our ambassador in Baghdad called on the Iraqi Minister to seek new assurances that the residents of Ashraf would be treated humanely? Was that not an acknowledgement of the British Government’s responsibility for the welfare of the people of Ashraf? Indeed, how can the British Government avoid their responsibility for the welfare of the people of Ashraf when, first, they were a party to the invasion of-

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: I thank the noble Lord for the questions. I can assure him, as I did in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that Iraq is a sovereign and democratic state and, as such, has that responsibility. It has never been the case that the UK has responsibility for the residents in the camp. However, as I have said on a number of occasions, the UK works with the United States and the United Nations to ensure that the rights of the residents of Camp Ashraf are protected.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that these people are not non-protected persons under the Geneva Convention? If that is correct, do the Iraqis have the right to deal with them within internal Iraqi constitutional law? Have the results of the inquiry come out yet?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: The view of the UK Government is that with the formal end of hostilities and the transfer of responsibility for the camp to the Iraqi authorities, any claim to protected person status by the camp’s residents under the fourth Geneva Convention has ceased to apply. That view is shared by the United Nations. The camp leadership have been given that information. As for the inquiry into the violence that occurred in July, we asked for a review of the events that took place. The ambassador met the Minister responsible on 27 January and reminded him of the need to send a copy of the report. We are still waiting to receive it. I will urge the ambassador to press again for a response from the Government.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, how does the Minister square her statement to the House that there is no evidence that the residents of Camp Ashraf are at risk with the statement from Amnesty International that they are at risk of,
"arbitrary arrest, torture or other forms of ill-treatment, and unlawful killing"?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I can only reiterate what my noble friend Lord Brett said in the answer that he gave to that question. We have no evidence of intimidation or harassment in the camp. I am aware of the Amnesty International report. The recent UN mission reported that the camp is calm and that the residents have access to food, water and medical supplies. We have no evidence of intimidation, harassment and the other issues raised by Amnesty International.

House of Lords –  9 February 2010

0 comments
FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappTelegramSkypeEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts