UK Parliament

Some sensible answers to Mojahedin claims

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Written answers

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Iraq: Mujahedin-e Khalq

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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)

‘ font-size: 10pt”>holding answer 20 March 2009

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>

Written answers

Monday, 20 April 2009

‘ font-size: 10pt”>House of Lords

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Iran

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Crossbench)

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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)

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>

Written answers

Tuesday, 21 April 2009

‘ font-size: 10pt”>House of Lords

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Iraq

Lord King of West Bromwich (Labour)

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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)

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>

Library of the House of Commons

In brief: Camp Ashraf and the Geneva Conventions

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Standard note: SN/IA/05022

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Last updated: 20 March 2009

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Author: Arabella Thorp

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Section: International Affairs and Defence Section

‘ font-size: 10pt”>

‘ font-size: 10pt”>What is Camp Ashraf ?

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Who is responsible for the inhabitants of Ashraf?

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>What are the main concerns?

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Do the Geneva Conventions apply?

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>

‘ font-size: 10pt”>What other international law is relevant?

‘ font-size: 10pt”>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.

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Further reading

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre, Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), 5 March 2009 [available through the Parliamentary Intranet]

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Juan-Pedro Schaerer, Iraq: ICRC activities in behalf of Iranian nationals living in Ashraf, 3 December 2008

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Zouhair Al Hassani, ‘International humanitarian law and its implementation in Iraq ’, International Review of the Red Cross Vol. 90 No. 869, March 2008

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Knut Dörmann and Laurent Colassis, ‘International Humanitarian Law in the Iraq Conflict’, German Yearbook of International Law 47 (2004), 293–342

‘ font-size: 10pt”>International Committee of the Red Cross, Protected persons and property and international humanitarian law [viewed 20 March 2009]

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Amnesty International, Iraq: No Iranians in need of protection should be sent to Iran against their will, 28 August 2008

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Amnesty International, Security agreement puts 16,000 Iraqi detainees at risk of torture, 28 November 2008

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Massoud Khodabandeh (former member of PMOI), Camp Ashraf: a test of US-Iraqi relations, 7 April 2008

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Iran Interlink, Nejat Society Asks UK to Support Iraqi Government Plans for Camp Ashraf Victims, 11 December 2008

‘ font-size: 10pt”>Hon. David Kilgour, J.D., ‘Catastrophe on horizon for Camp Ashraf refugees’, Middle East Times 8 October 2008

‘ font-size: 10pt”>House of Lords debate, Iraq: Ashraf City, HL Deb 2 March 2009 cc504-6

April 26, 2009 0 comment

A debateon the terrorist listing of MKO in House of Lords

Following is a partial transcript of the debate in the House of Lords on Monday on the terrorist listing of MKO

People’s Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran Question

2.44 pm

Asked By Lord Waddington

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to observe the latest judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities concerning the People’s Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): My Lords, mindful of the clear judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 December 2008 annulling the July 2008 listing of the PMOI, the UK believe that EU member states must observe and respect the court’s judgment in the current review of the EU list of terrorist organisations.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, but I think that he will agree with me that so far the British Government have not covered themselves in glory, having abstained rather than supported the Court of Appeal’s decision that the PMOI was not a terrorist organisation when the matter was before the Council of Ministers some months ago. Did not the European Court say in its judgment of 4 December that the British Government’s excuse for abstaining on that occasion—namely, that they had to vote either for or against the whole list of terrorist organisations—was wholly spurious? Surely

12 Jan 2009 : Column 1008

we are entitled to expect that from now on the Government will ensure that the judgments of the Court of Appeal and the European Court are observed and that the European Union respects the rule of law.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord is, as always, gracious; he was kind enough, in attributing the spurious response to the Government, not to say that it was my response in this Chamber to him and others. This gives me the opportunity to say that, while the Court thought the view incorrect that it was impossible to vote against only one member of that list, I checked back with officials, who have reconfirmed that it is up to the presidency of the European Council at the time to determine how such business is dealt with. A whole list was given and there was no option but to vote it up or down. Therefore, if we had not abstained, other terrorist organisations would have been delisted.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, supporting so strongly the EU Court of Justice and the importance of obeying its rules. We all recognise the delicacy of defining a terrorist organisation. I am not an expert on the PMOI, but I have some hesitation about it, which arises from the fact that right-wing think tanks, Washington, Christopher Booker and the Sunday Telegraph are among its strongest proponents. Does the Minister accept that we are concerned about the delicate line between legitimate exiled organisations in this country and terrorist organisations? For example, the last day we met in December, the VHP from India was mentioned in the context of raising charitable moneys in this country that may go through to violence against minorities in India. Are the Government looking overall at the question?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, we constantly review which organisations we believe should be proscribed. It is enormously important that our reviews and the decisions that we and our European partners make are subject to scrutiny by the courts. In this case it is clear that courts both at the national and the EU levels have found repeatedly against our desire to proscribe this organisation and it is enormously important that we accept and respect those judgments.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, will my noble friend reassure the House in clear and absolute terms that every future vote cast by Her Majesty’s Government will aim at the removal of the word “terrorist” in relation to the PMOI?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, let me be clear: at the end of this month there will be a decision on this issue by Ministers at the European level. Let me be equally clear that the UK will, both in the working meetings that precede that decision and at the time of the decision itself, urge respect for the decisions of the courts.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain why, if one is excluded, all others are excluded? Surely there is a form of assessment on the merits of each case. What is going on?

12 Jan 2009 : Column 1009

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, each organisation is individually considered by the working committee that gives advice to the Council of Ministers. It is then the prerogative of the presidency to decide how a vote is taken on the list derived from those discussions. The last presidency determined that the vote should be on the list as a whole and that the list should be either adopted by consensus or rejected. It was not possible, in the view of the officials involved, to demand a vote on individual organisations on the list.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham: My Lords, in the light of the PMOI’s hopes for a Government in Iran who respect religious freedom, what action are Her Majesty’s Government taking on the position of the seven leaders of the Baha’i community who have been imprisoned without trial and held in severe conditions and who are now threatened with execution for no other crime than their religious beliefs?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, we are very much aware that seven leading members of the Baha’i community have remained in detention without formal charge since their arrest in the first half of last year. We received reports in December that the group had been sentenced to death and that executions were imminent, although we have been unable to confirm this and cannot therefore substantiate the reports. Since the arrests, we have made several representations to the Iranian authorities calling for the group’s release and will continue to monitor developments closely. I associate myself with the right reverend Prelate in saying that this is an extraordinary attack on freedom of religion in that country.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in view of the court decision that effectively removes the PMOI from the terrorist list, it would be quite wrong to seek its inclusion on the EU’s asset-freeze list?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the two lists are in this sense linked. The deproscribing of the PMOI indeed has knock-on effects on the organisation as a whole.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, when the decision comes before European Ministers at the end of this month, will there be an individual decision on the PMOI? Will the Government then vote for deproscription?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, in the light of the court decision, we hope that the list, when it arrives before Ministers, will ideally not contain the PMOI.

January 15, 2009 0 comment

Gordon Brown: No evidence that MKO has given up terrorism

UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 192-i

House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE LIAISON COMMITTEE THE PRIME MINISTER
Thursday 13 December 2007
RT HON GORDON BROWN MP Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 – 120 USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1. This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others. 2. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

3. Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.

4. Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee. …. Q97 Malcolm Bruce: Just on that, Prime Minister, the main democratic opposition to the Iranian regime is the People’s Mujahideen organisation of Iran, which has been proscribed in this country. The proscribed organisation’s appeals committee have said that they are not involved in terrorism and that the refusal of the Home Secretary to de-proscribe them was flawed, perverse and must be set aside. Why does the Government not accept that?

Mr Brown: I have looked at that issue that you raise. It is certainly, however, the case that the organisation that you describe has been, in the past, involved in terrorist activity, and I do not think there is any doubt about the evidence that that has been the case. Therefore, to proscribe an organisation that has been involved in terrorist activity seems the right thing to do by the decisions of this Government to be consistent with other decisions that we make. Q98 Malcolm Bruce: We have accepted sometimes that terrorist organisations can change their ways? Mr Brown: But I do not think we have that evidence.

House of COMMONS

Link to the video broadcast of the session: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/VideoPlayer.aspx?meetingId=665

December 16, 2007 0 comment

European Union

The EU-wide asset freeze against MeK is therefore still in force

Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat) | Hansard source
asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What action they have taken to comply with the ruling of the European Court of First Instance in the case Organisation des Modjahedines du Peuple d’Iran v Council of the European Union, annulling Council Decision 2005/930/EC of 21 December 2005 freezing the funds of the organisation; and in what manner they will now provide for the full hearing of the case against the organisation.

Lord Triesman (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign & Commonwealth Office) | Hansard source

On 12 December 2006, the Court of First Instance (CFI) of the European Community annulled the Council of the European Union’s decision to add the Mujahedinn e Khalq (MeK, also known as OMPI or PMOI) to its list of terrorist organisations subject to an EU-wide asset freeze. The CFI judgment focused on issues of EU procedure; the Court did not rule on the substantive question as to whether the MeK is a terrorist group.

The specific Council decision of December 2005 annulled by the Court has been replaced by a subsequent Council decision of May 2006. The EU-wide asset freeze against MeK is therefore still in force. The EU keeps its terrorist asset freezing decisions under regular review.

Following the CFI decision on the MeK case in December, the EU has reviewed the listing, using improved procedures, and on 30 January reaffirmed its decision to include the MeK on its list of terrorist organisations. In line with the Court’s requirements, it has written to the group setting out the reasons for the decision, and explaining how the group can exercise its right to provide further information relevant to the case and/or petition for delisting.

House of Lords

March 15, 2007 0 comment

The residents of Camp Ashraf are subject to the laws of Iraq

UK foreign Office: The residents of Camp Ashraf are subject to the laws of Iraq

Harry Cohen (Leyton & Wanstead, Labour) Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what her Department’s policy is on the proposed extradition to Iran of the Iranian dissidents in Camp Ashraf, South East Baghdad; and if she will make a statement.

Kim Howells (Minister of State (Middle East), Foreign & Commonwealth Office) Hansard source

The residents of Camp Ashraf are subject to the laws of Iraq, including laws on residency and immigration. We would expect the Government of Iraq to implement these laws fairly and with due regard to the rights of those concerned. Camp Ashraf residents who have not personally been involved in illegal activities are free to leave the camp and return to their home countries if they have the appropriate travel documents. A number have already voluntarily returned to Iran, where they are now living. Some 300 of the approximately 3,500 residents of the camp have chosen to return to Iran with assistance and support from the Iraqi Human Rights Ministry and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki recently announced that he would establish a committee to look into the continuing residence in Iraq of those people living in Camp Ashraf, who in the main are not Iraqi nationals. But we are not aware of any plans to extradite Camp Ashraf residents to Iran.

House of Commons

December 4, 2006 0 comment

MEK Status in Iraq for Iraqi Government to Decide

Iran: People’s Mujahedin

Hansard: Written Answers

MEK Status in Iraq for Iraqi Government to Decide – Lord Triesman (UK)

Baroness Gould of Potternewton (Labour) Hansard source

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What is their response to the declaration concerning the recognition of the legal and political status of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran agreed at the congress of Iraqi people held in Ashraf City on 17 June.

Lord Triesman (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign & Commonwealth Office) Hansard source

Any statements or declarations made by Iraqi nationals in Iraq about the legal and political status of the "People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran", also known as the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) inside Iraq, are a matter for the Government of Iraq. The MEK is proscribed in the United Kingdom under the Terrorism Act 2000.

House of Lords

October 12, 2006 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts