Articles

Camp Ashraf exiles to begin leaving Iraq camp

The leader of a group of Iranian exiles living in a camp outside the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, has said 400 of its residents are preparing to relocate.

The group’s Paris-based leader, Maryam Rajavi, said the decision to leave Camp Ashraf was a "goodwill gesture".

It ends a tense standoff with the Iraqi government, which has repeatedly vowed to close the 25-year-old camp.

Earlier this week, Iraq and the UN agreed to resettle the camp’s more than 3,000 residents.

Those living in the camp, about 40 miles (65 km) north of Baghdad, were part of the People’s Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI), which fought alongside Iraqi soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war.

Several rockets are reported to have hit the camp on Sunday – residents have blamed the attacks on Iranians loyal to the regime in Tehran.

Ms Rajavi said the first group of exiles would leave the camp voluntarily "at the first opportunity" and relocate to a former US military base outside Baghdad, Camp Liberty.

She said they had been reassured by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s support for a peaceful and durable solution to the standoff, and the safety and security of the exiles.

"The relocation of the first group of residents is, at the same time, a test of the Iraqi Government’s attitude toward the commitments it has given to the United Nations and the United States," Ms Rajavi said in a statement.

The statement made no reference to when the remaining residents might also move, but they have previously expressed a wish to stay together so are expected to follow soon.

Once at Camp Liberty, their refugee status will be assessed by the UN – the exiles back the overthrow of the Islamic regime in Iran and say they cannot return home.

The deal reached by Iraq and the UN on Sunday was welcomed by the US, which handed responsibility for the camp to Iraq in 2009.

The PMOI, also known as Mojahedin-e Khalq, was welcomed when it arrived in Iraq in the 1980s by then-President Saddam Hussein, who was fighting a war against Iran. He funded and armed the group, which fought alongside Iraqi troops.

But Iraq’s new leaders have improved relations with neighbours Iran since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and have sought to close down the camp. In April a raid on the camp by Iraq’s army left at least 34 people dead, according to the UN.

December 29, 2011 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

MEK group in Iraq agrees to quit Camp Ashraf

The diplomatic standoff over a group of Iranian dissidents in Iraq appeared to be resolved Wednesday when the dissidents agreed to abandon their camp north of Baghdad and move to a former U.S. Army base, where the United Nations will process their applications for refugee status in Europe and elsewhere.

The first 400 of the more than 3,000 members of the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran – which Iraq earlier this year had threatened with mass expulsion – are ready "as a goodwill gesture" to transfer with their movable property and vehicles "at the first opportunity" to the former Camp Liberty at Baghdad International Airport, the group’s leader, Maryam Rajavi, announced.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week that he had agreed to postpone the deportation, which he’d set for Dec. 31, until at least April.

The group is deeply concerned about its safety and fears deportation to Iran, but Rajavi said a key reason for agreeing to leave its camp, known as Camp Ashraf, in Diyala province was the commitment by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday that U.S. Embassy officials would visit "regularly and frequently."

In addition, under an accord signed that day by Martin Kobler, the U.N. special representative in Iraq, the U.N. will conduct "24/7 monitoring at the camp until the last of the residents leaves Iraq." Kobler’s letter, released by the group Wednesday, pledged that no one would be repatriated to Iran against their will but cautioned that resettlement abroad was up to third countries.

The fate of the MEK, as it’s known by its Farsi language initials, has become an international cause celebre. The MEK had fought as a mechanized division in alliance with Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 war with Iran but was stranded by the U.S. invasion that toppled him in 2003.

The U.S. and Iraq officially view MEK as a terrorist group, although several top former U.S. national security figures have taken part in a major, well-funded campaign to have the group removed from the U.S. list of terrorist organizations.

Al-Maliki, has demanded repeatedly that the MEK leave its camp near the Iraq-Iran border. In April, Iraqi troops attacked the camp in a military operation that reduced its size by about one-third and left at least 35 dead.

The MEK said it had come under rocket attack on Sunday and Tuesday, but no injuries were reported.

After MEK members agreed in late August to file individual applications for asylum in third countries, Kobler began an arduous negotiation with the Iraqi government to ensure that there was adequate time for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees to conduct interviews to determine refugee status.

As many as 900 of the camp residents have papers or travel documents from third countries, and these will be among the very first processed, U.N. officials said. Those who wish to return to Iran will be processed rapidly, Kobler said in his letter.

One unanswered question is the fate of some 100 MEK members against whom Iranian criminal charges are pending, according to Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, Hasan Daniaei-Far.
Another is how the transfer to the former U.S. Army base will proceed. Kobler’s letter said that Iraq would provide security for the transfer, but he did not stipulate that residents could travel in their own vehicles and bring their movable property with them as Rajavi insisted they would do.

By ROY GUTMAN

December 29, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

MEK remains on US FTO list after Camp Ashraf deal

In August I was one among several people who wrote about a well-funded lobbying campaign by the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) to get delisted from the US’s foreign terrorist organizations (FTO) list. The MEK is an exiled Iranian group that has killed US and Iranian citizens. It’s also described as a “cult” that has committed human rights abuses against its own members as documented by the Rand Corporation and Human Rights Watch.

Armed and supported by Saddam Hussein, the MEK helped him repress Iraqi Shias and Kurds and fought against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Many analysts including neoconservative Michael Rubin have urged against delisting, noting potential blowback and acknowledging that the group would not be able to implement regime change in Iran due to its unpopularity with most Iranians.

President Obama was put in a tough spot by the MEK’s lobbying blitz not only because of the political heavyweights that expressed differing degrees of endorsement after thousands were paid to them in “speaking fees“, but also because of the MEK’s dishonest merging of the humanitarian concerns at their Camp Ashraf base with their FTO listing. Many expected that the Obama administration would announce a decision in September after dragging its feet for over a year following a 2010 Court of Appeals rare order that the designation be reevaluated, but no final announcement has been made and to date the MEK remains FTO-listed.

Under increasing Iraqi pressure to relocate and from human rights organizations urging leader Maryam Rajavi to allow independent access to over 3,000 Iranians at the camp, many feared a humanitarian tragedy such as mass suicide. But progress has been made after the UN convinced Iraq to sign a memorandum of understanding to temporarily resettle the residents to a former US military base north of Baghdad. The Head of the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq Martin Kobler said relocation was voluntary.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that the temporary solution had the U.S’s “full support” and that the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) would be conducting refugee status determinations for the members “toward resettlement to third countries.”

She also stressed that for the initiative to be “successful”, the camp’s residents would have to give their “full support” and urged them to “work with the UN”–an indication that resistance is expected from the MEK’s avid supporters (many are believed to be held against their will).

While the majority of MEK members have never left the camp, Rajavi has been living in Paris where she has successfully lobbied the group off the UK and EU FTO lists. The whereabouts of her husband Masoud are unknown, but some suspect he’s inside the camp. It will be interesting to see whether any new information about him is disclosed and if Maryam Rajavi will ultimately relinquish her hold on the group’s members.

So far there have been no independent confirmations of a MEK claim that Iranian rockets struck their camp on Sunday. We’ll also have to wait and see whether the residents allow themselves to be relocated out of Iraq. The only thing that’s certain is that these people–especially those who have been lured and born into Camp Ashraf–deserve a better life.

The following is an excerpt from the RAND report (pg. 38-9) for those who want to understand the MEK better.

The MeK as a Cult

From its earliest days, the MeK had had tight social bonds, but these began to be transformed into something more sinister during the mid- 1980s after the group’s leaders and many of its members had relocated to Paris. There, Masoud Rajavi began to undertake what he called an “ideological revolution,” requiring a new regimen of activities—at first demanding increased study and devotion to the cause but soon expanding into near-religious devotion to the Rajavis (Masoud and his wife, Maryam), public self-deprecation sessions, mandatory divorce, celibacy,enforced separation from family and friends, and gender segregation.

Prior to establishing an alliance with Saddam, the MeK had been a popular organization. However, once it settled in Iraq and fought against Iranian forces in alliance with Saddam, the group incurred the ire of the Iranian people and, as a result, faced a shortfall in volunteers. Thus began a campaign of disingenuous recruiting. The MeK naturally sought out Iranian dissidents, but it also approached Iranian economic migrants in such countries as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates with false promises of employment, land, aid in applying for asylum in Western countries, and even marriage, to attract them to Iraq. Relatives of members were given free trips to visit the MeK’s camps. Most of these “recruits” were brought into Iraq illegally and then required to hand over their identity documents for “safekeeping.” Thus, they were effectively trapped.

Another recruiting tactic was arranged with the assistance of Saddam’s government. Iranian prisoners from the Iran-Iraq War were offered the choice of going to MeK camps and being repatriated or remaining in Iraqi prison camps. Hundreds of prisoners went to MeK camps, where they languished. No repatriation efforts were made.

For coalition forces, the MeK’s cult behavior and questionable recruiting practices are significant insofar as they affect both the daily operations at the camp and the strategic disposition options available to the group. The leadership is unlikely to cooperate with policies that would undermine its ability to exert direct control over its members. Indeed, Human Rights Watch reports that the MeK long ago instituted a complicated process to retain members who expressed a desire to leave, which included a “trial,” forced confessions of disloyalty, and even torture. Although this process has been modified since the group was consolidated at Camp Ashraf, would-be walkaways are still “debriefed” for days or even weeks while held in some form of solitary confinement, during which they are encouraged to change their minds.

Conversely, the long-term indoctrination and isolation experienced by MeK members are likely to have instilled an exaggerated sense of loyalty, causing them to reject offers to separate themselves from their leaders. This would apply in particular to repatriation to Iran, where the expectation of persecution has been dramatically instilled in their minds.

Jasmin Ramsey

December 28, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Camp Ashraf deal undermines Western pro-MEK advocacy

The Washington Post reports on Iraq’s acceptance of a new deal concerning the MEK’s Camp Ashraf:

Iraq’s leaders agreed Sunday to a U.N.-brokered deal that could lead to the peaceful emigration of thousands of Iranian dissidents who have lived in the country under U.S. protection since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein eight years ago.

But the agreement, confirmed by Obama administration officials, has not yet been accepted by the Iranian exiles, who have repeatedly insisted on a U.S. troop presence to guard against possible attacks by Iraqis. Dozens of members of the dissident group, known as the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, have been killed by Iraqis since 2009 in assaults on the desert enclave where they have lived since being invited to Iraq by Hussein in 1986.

Put another way, a path has been cleared to free the civilian hostages that the MEK leadership is keeping in Camp Ashraf to use as bargaining chips in their effort to manipulate American opinion to get the government to change the official status of their group. American advocates for the MEK’s de-listing regularly exploit the misfortune of the inhabitants of Camp Ashraf, wrap themselves in the mantle of humanitarianism, and confuse the very different issues of the inhabitants’ safe departure from Iraq and the status of the MEK. Naturally, the MEK is not very interested in accepting a deal that deprives its leaders of the symbolism and political leverage that the plight of Camp Ashraf’s inhabitants provides, and its American advocates will have a harder time pretending that their advocacy for this terrorist group is linked to protecting the rights of a vulnerable population.

The deal seems to have provided an opportunity for the inhabitants of Camp Ashraf to escape from a country that is understandably hostile to their group, and it avoids repatriating them to Iran or anywhere else against their will:

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatically sensitive negotiations, said the accord would allow the Iranian exiles to move from their remote enclave, known as Camp Ashraf, to the grounds of Camp Liberty, the former U.S. military base near the Baghdad airport. They could then apply for emigration to other countries while under constant watch by unarmed U.N. observers.

This would appear to be a good outcome for everyone except the MEK leadership and its friends in the West.

Daniel Larison

December 28, 2011 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

U.S. wants safe resettlement from Ashraf

The resettlement of Iranian refugees at Iraq’s Camp Ashraf must have the support of camp residents and their supporters, the U.S. secretary of state said.

The United Nations and Baghdad last weekend signed a memorandum of understanding to relocate residents at Camp Ashraf in Diyala province to a temporary location at Camp Liberty, a former U.S. military base near Baghdad International Airport.

The MOU calls on the U.N. High Commission for Refugees to determine the refugee status of Ashraf residents to eventually resettle them in third countries.

Martin Kobler, head of the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, said the MOU made it clear relocation from Camp Ashraf was voluntary.

Camp Ashraf houses members of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran. Members of the PMOI were used as a paramilitary force by Saddam Hussein but surrendered to invading U.S. forces in 2003.

Europeans have relaxed their stance on the organization, though Washington lists it as a terrorist group. PMOI supporters in Europe and the United States are actively lobbying lawmakers to get the organization removed from the U.S. State Department’s terrorism list.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a statement, said PMOI supporters needed to ensure the relocation in Iraq is a success.

"This resettlement must also have the full support of the camp’s residents, and we urge them to work with the U.N. to implement this relocation," she said. "All those who want to see the people at Camp Ashraf safe and secure should work together to see that the agreed upon plan is carried out."

Dec. 27, 2011

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/12/27/US-wants-safe-resettlement-from-Ashraf/UPI-81141325006748/#ixzz1ho8T1TiH

December 28, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

US Troops Guarded Terrorist MEK Camp in Iraq

In a move that almost defies belief, is so brazen and hypocritical many will not believe it no matter how many State Department officials confirm it, the US has been guarding a terrorist training camp inside Iraq with US troops and is planning to relocated them, possibly in a freshly US Troops Guarded Terrorist MEK Camp in Iraq abandoned US military base in Iraq while D.C. lobbyists work feverishly to have them de-listed, armed, and sent to conduct terrorist operations in Iran.

MEK. Admittedly a terrorist organization, listed by the US State Department as being such, it is fully funded, armed, and backed by the United States, based in France and US-occupied Iraq, and allowed to conduct terrorist operations against the Iranian people. The “War on Terror” is a fraud.

….
Foreign Policy Magazine has reported in their article, “State Department scrambling to move the MEK — to a former U.S. military base?” fully admits that Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) is a terrorist organization used by Saddam Hussein to attack Iran in the 80′s and was responsible for the death of US military personnel and civilians. Foreign Policy reports that efforts by the Iraqi Army to evict MEK has resulted in armed clashes.

Foreign Policy then reports the United Nations “Assistance Mission in Iraq” (UNAMI) is working with the US State Department to relocate the terrorists within Iraq and possibly at a US military base near Baghdad’s airport.

Despite being listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department (#28 listed as “Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization”) its leadership is harbored in Paris, its rank and file harbored by US troops in Iraq, and the US State Department itself overseeing their continued existence and the continuation of their armed terrorist campaign. Foreign Policy also notes a huge lobbying movement in Washington working to de-list MEK as a terrorist organization, including:

Congressman John Lewis (D-GA),
former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell,
former FBI Director Louis Freeh,
former Sen. Robert Torricelli,
Rep. Patrick Kennedy,
former CIA Deputy Director of Clandestine Operations John Sano,
former National Security Advisor James Jones,
former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean,
former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani,
former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers,
former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card,
Gen. Wesley Clark,
former Rep. Lee Hamilton,
former CIA Director Porter Goss,
senior advisor to the Romney campaign Mitchell Reiss,
Gen. Anthony Zinni,
former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge,
former Sen. Evan Bayh

Indeed, warmongering Islamophobist cheerleader Rudolph Giuliani is taking money from a genuine terrorist organization and lobbying the US government to have it removed from the US State Department list. Tom Ridge is also listed as coddling MEK terrorists, ironically after being named the first “Homeland Security Secretary” from 2003-2005. Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, is perhaps the most alarming name listed, as it casts serious doubts over the objectivity, integrity, and veracity with which he conducted his “investigation” of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Though it isn’t money alone that motivates this eager throng of traitors to remove MEK from the US State Department Foreign Terrorist Organization list, it is their desire to see MEK worked with more closely, armed, trained, and sent into Iran, with open, rather than covert American support, just as Saddam had done decades ago to conduct a campaign of terror against the Iranian people.

MEK has been considered by the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution as a prime candidate for US-backing in an effort to undermine and remove the Iranian government. In Brookings’ 2009 report, “Which Path to Perisa?” it is stated:

“Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.

In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.

Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.” page 117-118 of “Which Path to Persia?” Brookings Institution, 2009

Readers may also be shocked to find out that not only has this been proposed, but long ago approved. This was revealed in Seymour Hersh’s 2008 New Yorker article “Preparing the Battlefield,” which stated:

“The M.E.K. has been on the State Department’s terrorist list for more than a decade, yet in recent years the group has received arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the United States. Some of the newly authorized covert funds, the Pentagon consultant told me, may well end up in M.E.K. coffers. “The new task force will work with the M.E.K. The Administration is desperate for results.” He added, “The M.E.K. has no C.P.A. auditing the books, and its leaders are thought to have been lining their pockets for years. If people only knew what the M.E.K. is getting, and how much is going to its bank accounts—and yet it is almost useless for the purposes the Administration intends.”

And as moves are being made to get MEK de-listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department so that even more aid can be rendered to this admitted terrorist organization, Seymore Hersh in an NPR interview, also claims that select MEK members have already received training in the US.

Quite clearly this reveals that not only is the “War on Terror” an absolute fraud, but so are the politicians, policy wonks, and military “leaders” who have promoted it, pinned medals on their own chests for “fighting” it, and have made immense fortunes and power grabs while burying the American people in unprecedented debt, tyranny, and economic catastrophe in the process. Let’s not forget the thousands of dead US troops duped into fighting this war and the hundreds of thousands maimed and broken, both physically and mentally, for what was essentially a gimmick to justify ravaging and looting the Middle East – a campaign that is still ongoing.

And while the new gimmick is utilizing terrorist groups like MEK or Libya’s LIFG to sow violence within a target country and then send NATO to “rescue” them from the nation’s attempt to defend itself, the “terrorist” card is still in play regarding Iran. It is clear then, that America’s greatest threat is its own “leadership,” bought and paid for by Wall Street and London’s corporate-financier interests and pursuing their agenda at the cost of the rest of humanity. We must identify these interests, boycott them out of business, and replace them entirely with local, pragmatic solutions.

December 26, 2011 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

Camp Ashraf Impasse Requires All Parties’ Cooperation

All parties involved with the UN plan to resolve the situation of Camp Ashraf residents should work to make sure it is carried out safely and effectively, Human Rights Watch said today. Camp Ashraf Impasse Requires All Parties’ Cooperation Everyone involved, especially the Iraqi authorities and the Mojahedin-e Khalq organization, should guarantee the safe transfer of Camp Ashraf residents to a protected site for refugee status determinations.

“Both Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and MEK leader Maryam Rajavi have issued statements suggesting they agree, in principle, to the UN plan, but both sides remain far apart on the details,” said Bill Frelick, refugee program director at Human Rights Watch. “Successful implementation of the UN plan requires good faith negotiations by all sides, including the Iraqi government and the leadership of the Mojahedin-e Khalq.”

On December 21, 2011,Maliki announced that the closing of Camp Ashraf would be delayed for six months if the MEK agrees to a Memorandum of Understanding for the relocation of the Camp Ashraf residents. However, a December 20 statement from Rajavi, which also agreed to the transfer in principle, set out conditions that have not been agreed upon. Because of the impasse, the prospect still looms that Iraq will stick to its December 31 deadline and use force to close the camp, raising fears for the safety of the approximately 3,200 residents.

Human Rights Watch sent letters on December 15 and 16, 2011, to the governments of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark and Sweden seeking their support for the appeal by Martin Kobler, the United Nations special envoy for Iraq,to the Iraqi government to extend a December 31 deadline for closing Camp Ashraf. Human Rights Watch also urged the governments to help ensure the safe transfer of camp residents for individual refugee status interviews, and respond quickly and positively to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s call for UN member states to indicate their willingness to accept Camp Ashraf residents for resettlement.

“Resolution of the Camp Ashraf situation requires the active involvement by other major players like the United States and the EU who can play a critical role in resettling Camp Ashraf residents and monitoring to make sure they are safe and are treated fairly,” said Frelick.

The Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) was founded in 1965 as an armed group to challenge the Shah of Iran’s government. In 1981, two years after the Iranian revolution, the group went underground after trying to foment an armed uprising against Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the former Supreme Leader of Iran. After a period of exile in France, most of the group’s leaders relocated to Iraq in 1986 and established Camp Ashraf, although its top leadership remains in France.

Human Rights Watch called on all parties to allow international diplomats, UN agencies, and independent observers to be present to monitor every step of the transfer of these residents to a protected transit site, such as the former Camp Liberty at Baghdad’s international airport. Human Rights Watch also urged the UN to continue monitoring the human rights and humanitarian situation after camp residents have been relocated to the transit site.

Human Rights Watch previously appealed to both the Iraqi government and the leadership of the MEK to cooperate fully with the UN to ensure the protection and safety of Camp Ashraf residents. Tension and mistrust between the MEK leadership and Iraqi security forces remain high following two violent incidents involving Iraqi security forces that led to the deaths of more than 40 Camp Ashraf residents, in July 2009and April 2011. Human Rights Watch has repeatedly called on Iraqi authorities to refrain from using excessive force against Camp Ashraf residents, and for independent and transparent investigations to investigate the two incidents and any crimes committed during them.

The Iraqi government has not opened investigations into these incidents.

The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials states that “law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty.” The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms provide that law enforcement officials “shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force” and may use force “only if other means remain ineffective.” When the use of force is unavoidable, law enforcement officials must “exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence.”

Human Rights Watch has also called on the Iraqi government not to return the exiles to Iran against their will.

As a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Iraq is bound to apply the principle of nonrefoulement. The UN’s Human Rights Committee, which interprets the covenant, has explained this obligation[..].

The Iraqi government has assured Washington that it would not forcibly transfer any member of the group to a country where they face a risk of torture.

December 25, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization members' families

Families representing Camp Ashraf residents want fast and peaceful resolution

The most unhelpful aspect of the negotiations to close Camp Ashraf and remove the residents from Iraq is that the Western agents continue to act on the myth that the people inside the camp Families representing Camp Ashraf residents want fast and peaceful resolution are somehow a single, discrete entity with no connection to the outside world and no say in their own treatment. Thus it is reported without context, analysis or explanation that the Mojahedin-e Khalq will need to be transferred to a separate facility – specifically the former U.S. military base Camp Liberty. Once there they will need to be interviewed by the UNHCR for decisions to be made on their refugee status, with UNAMI overseeing Iraqi conduct at the new camp. And out of this process their futures will be determined.

But even this, ‘the desired outcome’, is being promoted without the actual cooperation of the MEK leader.
This proposed mass movement of the camp’s residents can only give rise to a pseudo angst-ridden hand-wringing which at one time fears mass suicide, at another their mass deportation to Iran where they will be tortured and executed, it fears they are labelled as terrorists and will not be ‘allowed’ to come to the West, and then fears that they will come to the West and pose a security threat. Underpinning the whole Washington-led negotiation process is the basic principle ‘how do we conserve the MEK’.

Behind the naive and unhelpful scenario of convincing Massoud Rajavi to agree the mass relocation of his captives to an open camp over which he has no control lies a blatant violation of fundamental human rights which is taking place before everybody’s eyes but which nobody apparently wants to acknowledge. This is because focusing on this situation would remove any legitimacy from the negotiations. It would expose the reality behind the myth; Massoud Rajavi is nobody’s representative. It would mean acknowledging that Rajavi has falsely imprisoned over three thousand individuals and is daily violating their basic human rights and it would mean moving forward on that basis.

There are currently around 400 families at the gates of the camp. They have come determined to rescue their loved ones and protect them from harm. These are the true representatives of their captured relatives in the camp. Why do they still have no voice? Why do international agencies ignore them and pretend they have no stake in the negotiations and outcome.

Over the past eight years family after family has tried to assert their basic right – to meet with their closest relatives in a secure and private atmosphere outside the control of the MEK. The demand pre-dates the decision to close Camp Ashraf, and will certainly post-date any moves at the camp. Indeed, the biggest scandal is that this demand has nothing to do with the Iraqi determination to close the camp before the end of 2011, but it is still being ignored.

While nobody expected the MEK leaders to welcome the families with open arms, and nobody expected the MEK’s callous and cynical owners to care for the individual welfare of their gladiators and slaves, it is shocking that even internationally renowned human rights organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the UNHRC have not uttered a word about this situation. These protectors of human rights may as well have been paid by the Rajavis for their spurious appeals to the Iraqis to ‘protect the human rights’ the camp’s residents. Not one single word of criticism has been said against the Rajavi’s blatant and cruel denials of these families’ just demands. Not one word of criticism has been levelled against the Rajavis’ daily abuse of human rights inside the camp in spite of the on-going testimonies of both past and recent escapees.

It is the urgent obligation of every humanitarian agency involved to prefix the mythical negotiations with the unequivocal demand that Rajavi immediately and peacefully open the gate of Camp Ashraf and allow the people inside to have contact with their families. There can be no legal or moral obstacle or objection to such a course of action.

Anne Singleton is the author of the books "Saddam’s Private Army" and "Camp Ashraf"

December 24, 2011 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

State Department scrambling to move the MEK

State Department scrambling to move the MEK — to a former U.S. military base?

The Iraqi government has promised to shutter Camp Ashraf — the home of the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) — by Dec. 31. Now, the United Nations and the State Department are scrambling to move the MEK to another location inside Iraq, which just may be a former U.S. military base.

The saga puts the United Nations and President Barack Obama’s administration in the middle of a struggle between the Iraqi government, a new and fragile ally, and the MEK, a persecuted group that is also on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.

The Marxist-Islamist group, which was formed in 1965, was used by Saddam Hussein to attack the Iranian government during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and has been implicated in the deaths of U.S. military personnel and civilians. The new Iraqi government has been trying to evict them from Camp Ashraf since the United States toppled Saddam in 2003. The U.S. military guarded the outside of the camp until handing over external security to the Iraqis in 2009. The Iraqi Army has since tried twice to enter Camp Ashraf, resulting in bloody clashes with the MEK both times.

Now the United Nations, led by Martin Kobler, the head of the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), is working with the State Department to convince the Iraqi government and the MEK to open up a new home for MEK members inside Iraq, at a facility near the Baghdad airport. U.S. officials won’t confirm, but also won’t deny, that facility is a U.S. military base that was recently handed over to the Iraqis.

"Ambassador Kobler and we are working flat out to put together the deal for the beginning of the implementation of his plan, which is to move the people in Camp Ashraf to a new facility," a State Department official told reporters in a special Monday briefing. The United Nations and State are hoping that if an agreement is reached, the Iraqi government will push back the deadline and not invade Camp Ashraf on Dec. 31 and forcibly extradite the MEK to Iran. But time is running out.

"Time is extraordinarily short," the State Department official said. "Oh yes, we’re talking days."

The State Department official said the new facility under discussion is near the Baghdad airport, and has extensive infrastructure that "is very well known to the United States." Pressed by The Cable, the official refused to confirm that it was a former U.S. military base, but wouldn’t deny it either. "It’s a highly credible facility," the official said.

The official could not say if there was any precedent for a group that the United States labels a foreign terrorist organization being housed in a facility built by the U.S. military with U.S. taxpayer dollars, but emphasized that all U.S. military installations have now been turned over to the Iraqi government. The Victory Base Complex near the airport has several facilities that could be used for the Camp Ashraf residents.

Nobody knows how many people are in Camp Ashraf, because nobody can go inside. The residents are also suspected to be well armed. There could be as many as 3,200 people there, according to the State Department. If they are evicted from the camp, some will voluntarily go back to Iran and some will go to other countries. Others still may not actually be MEK members but could be living there for their own reason, making their relocation easier, the official said. The unknown number of "card-carrying members" of the MEK who can’t or won’t be relocated are the ones who the United Nations and State are trying to move to the new camp.

The United Nations and the Iraqi government have agreed on the basic way forward, but the MEK is not on board, the State Department official said. The Iraqi government won’t talk directly to the MEK, and the MEK leadership living in Paris may have different priorities than the people actually living in Camp Ashraf.

Of course, the Iraqis have been warning for months that they would close Camp Ashraf by the end of the year. So why is everybody scrambling in the last two weeks? The State Department is placing the blame squarely on the MEK.

"For a long time, the MEK position was ‘here we are and here we stay, period,’" a State Department official said. "In recent days we’ve had the first signs that the MEK is finally, at long last, beginning to engage in a serious way, rather than simply politically through its many, many advocates. This is a good sign."

Reporters at the briefing wondered why the United Nations and State think simply relocating the MEK to another facility will solve the problem of its status as a terrorist group whose members are unable to get refugee status in a country where they are not welcome. The official said the new facility would be better because it would give the Iraqi government some control over what goes on there.

"[Camp Ashraf] is a state within a state. It is run by the MEK and when anybody else tries to enter, well, we’ve seen what occurs," one State Department official said, explaining that the new camp would have some type of Iraqi government administration and yet not be in total control of the MEK. "Iraqi soveriegnty will prevail with a robust set or arrangements and U.N. monitoring."

Another reason the United Nations and State are pushing for the MEK to be moved from Camp Ashraf to another facility is that the U.N. High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has refused to give refugee status to Ashraf residents because of the MEK’s tight control over the people there.

"Many international observers have regarding the current facility at Camp Ashraf as a coercive environment. Independent observers have called it a cult," the State Department said. "The UNHCR requires an atmosphere in which people can make their own choice free of group pressure. What’s happened in Camp Ashraf has not been conducive to this."

Advocating for the MEK is a tricky proposition for the State Department, because the organization is on its list of foreign terrorist organizations. The MEK has been lobbying hard for its removal from that list and State’s review of their status has been "ongoing" for years.

As part of its multi-million dollar lobbying effort, the MEK has paid dozens of top U.S. officials and former officials to speak on its behalf, sometimes at rallies on the State Department’s doorstep. MEK supporters have been stationed outside the State Department non-stop for months now, and are even showing up at Congressional hearings.

Their list of advocates, most who have admitted being paid, includes Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former Sen. Robert Torricelli, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, former CIA Deputy Director of Clandestine Operations John Sano, former National Security Advisor James Jones, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers, former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, Gen. Wesley Clark, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, former CIA Director Porter Goss, senior advisor to the Romney campaign Mitchell Reiss, Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, former Sen. Evan Bayh, and many others.

The State Department officials didn’t say outright that these officials are making the challenge of dealing with the MEK worse by shilling for the organization around Washington. But they did call on the MEK’s paid representatives to use whatever clout they have to urge the MEK to go along with the relocation now.

"It is important for those advocates to support a solution that is feasible. Because maximalist demands and echoing a kind of martyrdom and complex of defiance and blood will produce the results they fear. Now is the time for everybody who says they want a peaceful solution to back that solution right now," the official said.

But what happens after the MEK moves to the new facility, even if the current deal is worked out in time? What’s the plan to deal with these people over the long run?

"Right now our priority is in a successful, peaceful relocation," the State Department official said. "One huge problem at a time."

UPDATE: The AP reported has just reported that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has decided to grant a 6-month extenstion on the closing of Camp Ashraf, although he is backdating the start of the extension to November.

December 22, 2011 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

Fate of Ashraf Residents Hang in Balance

Isolated in a fenced area by barbed wire, in hot desert of Iraq, without having been determined as refugees, kept in their highly–guarded units, residents of Camp Ashraf are certainly stuck in the Fate of Ashraf Residents Hang in Balance most complex situation. Besides, the leaders of the camp have been manipulating the members for over thirty years now. The residents have no freedom of expression and no access to the outside world. It is too difficult for outsiders to get comprehensive information on what is really going on in the Camp. Regarding cult-like characteristics of the group, evacuation or relocation of MKO members is still a critical issue that the international community really panics.

"U.S. officials fear that unless MEK leader Maryam Rajavi gives her approval, there will be a bloodbath at Camp Ashraf", writes Barbara Slavin of IPS. "There are particular concerns that MEK members will clash with Iraqi security forces or commit mass suicide." [1]

The U.S. administration is supporting a plan led by Ambassador Martin Kobler, the U.N. special representative to Iraq that would allow for a peaceful transfer of the residents of Camp Ashraf to a new facility in Iraq. The plan would also work to repatriate MEK members to Iran who go "voluntarily," or resettle to third countries under the auspices of the U.N., CNN reports. [2]
"The good news here is that in the past two weeks, Ambassador Kobler and the Iraqi government have made significant progress on this plan," an official told CNN on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of ongoing negotiations between the U.N., the Iraqi government, and the MKO. [3]

The alleged progress perhaps included the relocation of Ashraf residents in Camp Liberty, a single "temporary relocation" facility near the Baghdad International Airport. The location is "an accessible, not inaccessible part of the country," quoted CNN from the official. [4]

The MKO leaders’ reluctance to leave their ideological preserve, Camp Ashraf was not welcomed by either Americans or Iraqis. Barbara Slavin cites of a US official, "after much regrettable stalling, the MEK finally seems ready to engage seriously". "This is good, but the MEK must be realistic, and time is short", the official added. [5]

The official added that while MEK leaders have backed off from "maximalist positions" in the last 48 hours, "We’re still hearing talk about martyrdom and dying."[6]
If the residents are given the chance to choose their place of life, there are definitely a large number who are willing to leave the group and to get released of the extreme pressure imposed on them by the camp authorities. “Particular attention should be given to the approximately 70 percent of the Camp Ashraf population that joined the MeK after the group relocated to Iraq” according to RAND Corporation report. ”A substantial number of these MeK members were lured to Iraq under false pretenses or did not have a clear understanding of the group’s goals and methods of operation—particularly with respect to its cult behavior—and many have been forced to remain against their will. [7]

U.S. officials do not know for sure how many people are at Ashraf but believe they include minors and others who were tricked into going to the camp. There they were subjected to military training and mind control exercises that include cult-like devotion to Mrs. Rajavi and her husband Massoud, whose whereabouts are unknown, asserts Slavin.[8]

As a matter of fact, it is the absolute right of over 3000 Ashraf inhabitants to be got the opportunity and the place where they can think of and decide for a normal future. It is also the absolute right of the Iraqi government to assert sovereignty over its territory of which a large area has been occupied by the MKO for over 3 decades – the camp was handed over to the group by Saddam Hussein who gave them a military and financial support as well.
Iraqi people are in the same party with their government in their protest against the presence of the MKO in their soil. On December10, Hundreds of Iraqis took part in a “protest rally to demand the expulsion of members of the terrorist Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization,” reported Press TV. [9]
A more recent protest also took place on Friday December 16 in Baghdad where thousands of Iraqi people held a demonstration in Tahrir square in central Baghdad calling for expulsion of the MKO. [10]

In an outstanding article, in the Washington Post, titled “Building a Stable Iraq”, Iraqi prime Minister, Nouri Al Maliki notes his country’s determination to “put Iraq’s new democracy on the right path” but he notifies that “challenges remain”. He names Baathist “who seek to destroy Iraq’s democratic process”. He refers to Ashraf residents as source of a “great deal of controversy” in Iraq and in the United States. ”I would like to see this complex issue resolved peacefully and with the help of the United Nations.” he writes. ”The Camp’s residents are classified as a terrorist organization by many countries and thus have no legal basis to remain in Iraq.” [11]

Confirming Iraq’s right to have control over its entire territory, Maliki writes, ” country wouldn’t accept the presence of foreign insurgents on its soil, but we will work hard to find a peaceful solution that upholds the international values of human rights.”[12]

Predictions on the place where Ashraf residents will be relocated after its complete expulsion from Iraq, is another challenging issue. The Iraqi ambassador to Iran says Azarbayjan and a number of other countries have agreed to receive nearly 900 members of the terrorist group of Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), reported Press TV.[13]

Mohamamd Majid Al-Sheikh said, "Necessary measures are being taken through cooperation of the Red Cross and Iraqi officials to transfer these individuals.” [14]
On its turn the international Committee of Red Cross, "welcomes the Iraqi authorities’ commitment not to transfer Camp Ashraf residents to Iran against their will, and will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that the Iraqi authorities fulfill this commitment" said Beat Schweizer, head of ICRC delegation in Iraq. [15]

Mr. Schwiezer mentioned previous experiences of ICRC in aiding former members of the group to return to their home country Iran.” we have been facilitating the repatriation of former residents of Camp Ashraf who wish to go back to Iran” he said. “Since 2003, the ICRC has arranged for repatriation of over 250 Camp Ashraf residents to their home country, in cooperation with its delegation in Tehran. The ICRC has helped repatriated seven former residents in 2011, with the most recent repatriation taking place in August.” He also declared that ICRC is prepared to continue helping residents return Iran. [16]

A more recent Iraqi stance against MKO presence in Iraq was published by Agence France Press on December 15th. In the interview with AFP Nouri Al-Maliki said that Baghdad’s decision to close Camp of New Iraq – the name that was given to Camp Ashraf After it was handed over to Iraq — by year end is “irreversible”. [17]
It seems that the way is approximately paved for the ultimate evacuation of Camp Ashraf and Iraqi government is determined to wipe its territory off occupiers but concerns over the fate of the residents do not simply come to an end. In response to Amnesty International that is allegedly concerned over "the serious risk of severe human rights violations if the Iraqi government goes ahead with its plans to force the closure of the camp by the end of this month", the senior U.S. administration official said Amnesty, instead, should urge the MEK to sign onto the plan "at hand and not encourage people to die". [18]

By Mazda Parsi

Sources:
[1]Slavin, Barbara, Mass Tragedy Feared as Closure of MEK Camp Looms, IPS, Dec 19th,2011
[2]Crawford, Jamie, U.S. supports plan to relocate terror group, CNN, Dec. 19th,2011
[3]ibid
[4]ibid
[5] Slavin, Barbara, Mass Tragedy Feared as Closure of MEK Camp Looms, IPS, Dec 19th,2011
[6]ibid
[7] Goulka, Jeremiah, Lydia Hansell, Elizabeth Wilke, and Judith Larson.
"Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum." *RAND National Defence
Research Institute* (2009): Web. 3 Nov 2010.
[8] Slavin, Barbara, Mass Tragedy Feared as Closure of MEK Camp Looms, IPS, Dec 19th, 2011
[9]Press TV, Iraqis want MKO terrorists expelled, December 10, 2011
[10]Tehran Times, Iraqis rally demanding MKO expulsion, December 16, 2011
[11]Al-Maliki, Nouri, Building a stable Iraq, WashingtonPost, December10, 2011.
[12]ibid
[13]PressTV, Azarbayjan to take in MKO members, Decemebr10, 2011
[14]ibid
[15]International Committee of Red Cross Official Website, Situation remains uncertain for residents of camp Ashraf, Decemebr13, 2011
[16]ibid
[17]Karim Ammad, Nuri al-Maliki: decision to close Camp ashraf is final, we cannot allow a criminal gang to remain in Iraq, AFP, Decemebr15, 2011
[18] Slavin, Barbara, Mass Tragedy Feared as Closure of MEK Camp Looms, IPS, Dec 19th,2011

December 22, 2011 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts