December 23, 2024

Posts Comments

Talks underway on closing Iran exile camp in Iraq

November 18, 2011 by

AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE

Supporters of residents of Camp Ashraf demonstrate in Geneva (AFP/File, Fabrice Coffrini

BAGHDAD — Negotiations are underway on relocating several thousand exiled Iranian opposition members from a camp north of Baghdad to another location in Iraq, officials said on Friday.

The European Union, meanwhile, urged further cooperation between UN negotiators and Iraqi officials in “difficult” efforts to close Camp Ashraf, which has hosted members of the People’s Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran (PMOI) since the 1980s.

Iraqi authorities have decided to close the camp by the end of 2011.

“The primary and overall responsibility to deal with the situation in Camp Ashraf lies with the government of Iraq within its sovereignty,” Martin Kobler, the UN secretary general’s special representative for Iraq, told AFP on Friday.

“In agreement with the government, we are in continuous contact with all parties, including the residents of the camp and the members of the international community to facilitate a peaceful and durable solution,” Kobler said.

“In this, I count on the full cooperation of the government of Iraq, the Camp Ashraf residents and the international community. International humanitarian standards and human rights have to be respected.”

“We are ready to assist,” Kobler said. “It is in everyone?s interest to find a peaceful solution.”

According to an Iraqi official, the object is to move the PMOI to another location, then for the United Nations to help repatriate those with dual citizenship to their second countries and the rest to Iran or another state.

The UN insists that repatriation to Iran will be on a voluntary basis.

“The EU is following very closely the current negotiations between the UN, UNHCR (UN Refugee Agency) and the government of Iraq about Camp Ashraf,” said a statement issued by the office of EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

“These negotiations are very difficult but we trust the UN negotiators to conduct them with the safety of the residents as their main preoccupation,” it added.

“The EU is also in regular contact with the Iraqi authorities and encourages them to be as flexible as possible with the modalities of the evacuation and to cooperate with UNHCR in order to facilitate the relocation of the residents,” the EU statement said.

Earlier in Brussels, the head of the European parliament’s delegation for relations with Iraq challenged the country’s determination to close the camp as “a virtual declaration of war on the UN and international community and a death warrant” for Ashraf residents.

“Ashraf residents … have accepted the European Parliament plan to be transferred to third countries. And we are working full power in this direction,” PMOI spokesman Shahriar Kia said by email.

“The problem is that the precondition for transfer to third countries is confirmation of the refugee status of residents by the UNHCR,” he said.

The UNHCR has said it is ready to “initiate its work by verifying the identity of Ashraf residents,” Kia said, but for “over two months now … we are waiting and the Iraqi government (has been) stonewalling the UNHCR work from the beginning.”

Camp Ashraf, which has become a mounting international problem, has been in the spotlight since a deadly April raid on the camp by Iraqi security forces.

The camp was set up when Iraq and Iran were at war in the 1980s by the PMOI and later came under US control until January 2009, when US forces transferred security for the camp to Iraq.

The PMOI has been on the US government terrorist list since 1997.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hkbU4agiiN6l51kpS1ZwqbE6hgHQ?docId=CNG.c08ef4ed8aae44f2aa1bee94410bd809.561

Filed Under: Camp Ashraf, News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Iraqi Government’s Declaration of War on the UN and Death Warrant for Ashraf Residents

November 18, 2011 by

URGENT STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT’S DELEGATION FOR RELATIONS WITH IRAQ

US, EU, UN’s Grave Responsibility to Prevent a Humanitarian Catastrophe in Ashraf

The Iraqi Embassy in Brussels has notified the European Parliament of the position of the Iraqi Government on the issue of Camp Ashraf in a 10-point official document. The document is disingenuous and illegal in its entirety and amounts to a virtual declaration of war on the UN and international community and a death warrant for the residents of Ashraf. It reiterates the intention to clear the camp by the end of the year, claims the 3400 residents of Ashraf are terrorists, denies that they have any status as refugees or protection under the Geneva Conventions and confirms that their continued presence is creating difficulties with neighbouring Iran. It clearly opposes attempts by the UNHCR to interview the residents and provide them with refugee status. 

The document stresses that “the Iraqi government is committed to its decision to close Camp Ashraf by the end of 2011,” and since resettlement “did not lead to any results because of either refusal by the inhabitants of the Camp to evacuate, or non-willingness of those States to receive them…, the Iraqi government was left with no choice but to evacuate the Camp based on the principle of sovereignty, and transfer its residents to other camps in Iraq and facilitate their travel outside Iraq during the period left from this year.” 

The document deliberately ignores the extensive efforts of the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Assistance Mission to Iraq (UNAMI), the European Union, and United States, who have bent over backwards to reach a peaceful resolution to the Ashraf issue involving the resettlement of its residents, but have been repeatedly blocked at every turn by the Iraqi Government. The document is a blatant effort to set the stage for the massacre of Ashraf residents, clearly at the behest of the Iranian regime. The UNHCR, European Parliament, US Congress, Amnesty International and other international bodies have repeatedly demanded in past months that the wholly unworkable deadline for closure of Ashraf by the end of 2011 should be extended until such time as refugee status of its residents could be affirmed by the UNHCR, enabling their safe transfer to third countries. 

The 10 point document clearly shows that this a policy dictated by the Iranian regime. It explicitly states that Iraq is committed to non-interference in the internal affairs of neighbouring states and “the existence of this Organization however raises problems with Iran.” In another part of the document it is stated, “The presence of this Organization in Iraq threatens… the security of neighbouring countries and gives an excuse to neighbouring countries [Iran] to interfere in the internal affairs of Iraq.” Article 10 of the document states, “Iraq, as a democratic and peaceful country, wants to build peaceful relations with the neighbouring countries [Iran]…” 

The document falsely states the reason for the closure of Ashraf to be “the Organization [PMOI] has already been classified by the international community as a terrorist organization” and “The presence of the Organization is prohibited under the Iraqi Constitution that prohibits the presence of any terrorist entity on Iraqi territory.”

The letter ludicrously says, “Iraq is dealing with the residents of the camp as individuals and in accordance with the human rights principles and rules of international law enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” It appears as if the massacre of 47 residents, wounding of more than 1,000 others, the barbaric three-year siege of Ashraf, and the denial of medical facilities causing the painful death of sick and wounded patients, is according to the Iraqi Government an integral part of the principles of human rights enshrined  in international law. This is quite simply a joke! 

Since the letter leaves no doubt about the Iraqi government’s intentions for the massacre of Ashraf residents, I find it necessary to stress the following points: 

  1. The international community, in particular the United States of America, the European Union, and the United Nations, must mobilise all their efforts to prevent another predictable bloodbath and a repeat of Srebrenica in Ashraf. The Iraqi government, whose hands are stained with the blood of unarmed and defenceless Iranian refugees, came to power with the help of the US and British and other Western governments. These countries, therefore, bear an important moral responsibility in preventing this looming catastrophe. 
  2. The international community, in particular the United States of America and the European Union, must fully support the mission of the United Nations and the UNHCR for the affirmation of Ashraf residents’ refugee status and their resettlement to third countries. They must force the Iraqi government to postpone its deadline until the completion of this process. The United States in particular must prevent a great tragedy by precluding the Iraqi government from implementing the orders of the fascist dictatorship in Iran who seek the annihilation of Ashraf. If such a tragedy were to occur, the United States would bear the greatest responsibility. 
  3. The European Union and its High Representative, Catherine Ashton, must adopt a clear position by condemning the Iraqi deadline and any forcible relocation of Ashraf residents inside Iraq. EU member states should immediately accept some of the Ashraf residents, particularly the ill and wounded, and persons who have been asylum seekers or who have family relations in European countries. This would be a tangible sign that the evacuation process had begun and would make any invasion of the camp by the Iraqi authorities more difficult to accomplish under the eyes of the world’s media. 
  4. Any promises by the Iraqi Government are worthless. A few hours prior to the start of shooting in April 2011, the residents of Ashraf received a message via the US Embassy from the Iraqi Prime Minister giving assurances that there would be no violence. When Ashraf residents are dispersed in small groups, Iraqi forces and the terrorist Iranian Qods force will torture and assassinate them without the world being informed. In such circumstances if the world stands aside and allows matters to take their course without intervening, the resident of Ashraf, including more than 1000 women, face certain death.

Struan Stevenson, MEP

President of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with Iraq

18 November 2011

Filed Under: Camp Ashraf, News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Time for courage from Europe over Camp Ashraf

November 18, 2011 by

 PublicServiceEurope.com

The tragedy of the Warsaw Ghetto is about to be repeated in Iraq if Europe, the United States and the United Nations do not step up to the plate.
Alexis de Tocqueville once said: “When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness.” What the government of Iraq is planning to do with Camp Ashraf, home to 3,400 Iranian dissidents, is frighteningly reminiscent of what Hitler did to the Warsaw Ghetto in 1942 – and it seems the bitter past is shedding little light on the situation. During the United States-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 – Ashraf residents, members of the principal Iranian resistance movement the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran – or PMOI/MEK – who had gained refuge in Iraq for the past 25 years remained neutral. The following year, all of them got written guarantees that in return for voluntary disarmament the US would protect them. But, in early 2009, America handed responsibility for the camp’s security to Iraqi forces. Since then, Ashraf has been under a punishing blockade – with residents deprived of such basic services as access to proper medical care.
 
Prior to this blockade, as a member of the European Parliament, I visited Ashraf periodically between 2004 and 2008. I went on the most visits to Ashraf of any western politician and I know hundreds of residents personally and intimately. I also prepared reports on my trips for the European Parliament. Despite written assurances from Iraqi leaders to the US government – to observe all the rights of Ashraf residents – Amnesty International reported on November 1 that Camp Ashraf had been “attacked several times by Iraqi security forces, causing the deaths of dozens of residents and injuries to others”. Amnesty added: “Iraqi troops stormed into the camp on April 8 using grossly excessive force and live fire. Some 36 residents, including eight women, were killed and more than 300 were wounded. At least nine camp residents were killed and others injured in an earlier attack on July 28–29, 2009.”
 
At the behest of the Tehran authorities, Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki set December 31 as the deadline for the camp to close and the clock is ticking. In September, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees announced that it considered the Ashraf residents to be asylum seekers and urged Iraq to extend the deadline so it could process the asylum requests. Yet, the government of Iraq has obstructed the UNHCR process at every turn. Iraq’s plan is to disperse the residents throughout the country and then massacre them quietly. This tragic eventuality is rather obvious in a formal letter that the government of Iraq provided to a number of European institutions in November, a copy of which I obtained. The document stated: “The Iraqi government was left with no choice, but to evacuate the camp based on principle of sovereignty – and transfer its residents to other camps in Iraq.”
 
The Iraqi government again is trying to deceive the international community and the UN agencies by providing “assurances”. Sadly, such assurances from the authorities are worthless. Six hours prior to the assault last April, the American Embassy in Iraq received assurance from Maliki that there would be “no violence”. Needless to say, that lying to the UNHCR is much easier than lying to the U.S. On legal, moral, and political grounds – the US has the most responsibility towards Ashraf residents. Congress has underscored this reality. During a hearing at the Senate on November 15, Senator Carl Levin – the chairman of the Armed Services Committee – said it should be made clear to the government of Iraq that “there’s a real strong feeling around here” for Ashraf residents and “if they violate that commitment to us that is going to have a severely negative impact on their relationship with the US Congress”. Unfortunately, the American government has not provided appropriate response to all these concerns.
 
During the April raid, despite video vividly showing firing squads assassinating unarmed civilians and armored vehicles rolling over them, Iraq’s official position was first that there were no casualties, and when the dozens of corpses of defenseless refugees could not be denied – Iraq said they had committed suicide. If Ashraf residents are dispersed in small groups, without cameras and phones, Iraqi authorities will be able to torture and assassinate them and claim they committed suicide; this time without any evidence of their lies.
 
The Iraqi plan is strikingly reminiscent of the “resettlement” plan of the Third Reich for Warsaw Ghetto residents. It was supposed to commence on July 22, 1942, but by June some inside the ghetto wanted to alert the world to the “systematic extermination” underway. Their warnings mostly went unheeded. Those residents who could see what was coming decided to stay in the Warsaw Ghetto rather than be transferred to certain death in obscure locations. The eventual outcome was tragic, but at least the world could see what was happening.
 
Ashraf residents would have to be suicidal to believe such “assurances” and to be dispersed peacefully. Like the Warsaw Ghetto residents, those in Ashraf would have to resist any deportation order by any means they have. What should be done? Well, the UNHCR should publicly demand that Iraq start to cooperate with it and allow immediate interviewing of Ashraf residents. The US, European Union and UN should demand that the December 31 deadline be extended. For the period of the final disposition and transferring Ashraf residents to third countries, UN monitors should be placed in Ashraf to guarantee their rights. History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived; however, if faced with courage, it need not be lived again. This is time for courage.

Paulo Casaca is director of the Alliance to Renew Cooperation among Humankind campaign group. He was an MEP from 1999 to 2009

Filed Under: Camp Ashraf, News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Stop Another Bloodbath at Camp Ashraf , Before it is Too Late

November 16, 2011 by

THE HUFFINGTON POST

On Tuesday 1 November 2011, there was an urgent press conference at UK’s Houses of Parliament.

The press conference was attended by a large number of the Iranian and non-Iranian community and chaired by David Amess, the Conservative Member of Parliament for the constituency of South end West.

The key speakers were Mr Mark Williams from the Liberal Democrat party, Mr Steve McCabe from the Labour party; and Lord Dholakia deputy President of the Liberal Democrat party in the House of Lords. Amongst the speakers, was also Mr Hossein Abedini, a member of the Parliament in exile of the Iranian resistance (NCRI) who also belongs to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Mr Abedini is a victim and one of the few survivors of Iran’s acts of terrorism.

The press conference was brought together in order to discuss the recent serious developments on Camp Ashraf’s situation. Camp Ashraf is home to 3400 Iranian dissidents who are also members of the People’s Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI), Iran’s main opposition group. They have taken refuge from the Iranian regime and are living in Iraq for over two decades. During this period, they have been fighting to bring democracy and freedom to Iran and enlighten the world to the crimes of this terrorist regime.

However, for the residents of Camp Ashraf, it has been far from a ‘normal life’ as the mullahs have made every attempt to destroy the camp and ‘get rid’ of the residents.

After the overthrowing of the former president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, the U.S. forces disarmed the Iranian dissidents in 2003 and promised to provide all of them with protection.

They were also given ‘protected persons’ status under the 4th Geneva Convention. However, two years ago, following plans of U.S. forces’ withdrawal from Iraq, control of the camp was handed over to the Iraqi government. Ever since, the camp has been under two separate attacks, which resulted in killing nearly 50 innocent people and injuring hundreds.

Due to the recent and intense spotlight that the international community have put on the Iranian regime, the mullahs’ fear of being overthrown has increased significantly. They are now the focus of major world leaders, especially in relation to the issue of their nuclear weapon capacity. On the other hand, their relationship with their Arab neighbours are looking worse than ever, following the recent plans of Iran’s terror plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington DC.

In addition, after the Arab spring, Iran is swiftly losing control in the Middle East region and is unable to help dictators such as the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in brutally suppressing the Syrian people and acts of terrorism in different parts of the world. From a very different angle, there is more and more news of economic and political corruption coming to the surface inside of Iran and more tension and division between the Supreme Leader and his followers, and Ahmadinejad and his friends.

When considering all these factors, one can clearly recognise and feel how terrified the mullahs must be. Their desperation to do whatever it takes in order to stay in power is quite obvious. Do they learn from history or the fall of great dictators and try to become better leaders for their people and country? Absolutely not! They continue to suppress the Iranian people while making every effort to destroy their main opposition group at Camp Ashraf.

At the Parliamentary press conference, we were shown a number of video clips, which was recorded by the residents of the Camp despite all kinds of restrictions. The footage clearly showed a very large number of military vehicles and convoys approaching and entering the camp in a noisy and aggressive manner, as to declare their presence and intimidate the residents further. This was following a trip of the Iranian Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi to Iraq.

In addition, we were shown how the number of loud speakers placed around the camp by the Iraqi forces to psychologically torture the residents day and night, has increased from the 300 that it previously was. Furthermore, we could see that the same technical equipments and devices which were used in Iran’s 2009 uprising to disrupt and disconnect all kinds of communication to and from the outside world, was put in place around the camp. This, in itself, is a very serious threat to the lives of the residents, as it is absolutely crucial for them to communicate with the outside world and give words out of an attack. Without communication and by being away from the media’s eyes, the Iraqi forces and Iranian regime have more of an opportunity to carry out a third massacre in Ashraf and it leaves the Ashrafis defenceless to face the barbarity of the Iraqi regime.

All of these are clear acts of coercion and strongly indicates that another attack is on its way if the international community and responsible bodies stand back and do nothing. What is being asked in favour of the residents’ protection is very simple, absolutely lawful and within the international humanitarian law. Mr Abedini explained in his speech, that there are a number of steps, which are required for the protection of the 3400 men and women at Camp Ashraf, these are the following:

1. The U.S., EU and the UN to force Iraq to withdraw its deadline from closure of the Camp by the end of 2011. This deadline is unrealistic due to the large number of the residents and the implications of having them all re-settled in third democratic countries.

2. The UN Secretary General and the Office of the High Commissionaire for Human Rights to station a permanent monitoring team in Ashraf to provide and guarantee the residents’ protection until the complete re-settlement of all residents.

3. The UN Secretary General, the U.S. government and the European governments including the UK government as the main partner in the coalition war against Iraq, to make possible the establishment of a UN peace keeping force and United Nations’ blue helmets to protect the residents until all of the residents have been re-settled in third democratic countries.

4. The UNHCR to re-affirm the residents’ legal status as political refugees.

In his speech, Lord Dholakia added, that we were prepared to establish democratic values and pay the price of it by going to war with Iraq. We were also prepared to bomb Libya for the sake of establishing the rights of the people to survive. Surely, it is not asking too much that the people of Ashraf require the same protection from the international community! Moreover, Steve McCabe wholeheartedly pointed out, that by standing aside and doing nothing, we are dishonouring the British soldiers who lost their lives in the Iraq war, and fought to bring freedom and democracy for the people living in that country.

The time for talking on this subject is over. We are facing a major humanitarian disaster. If nothing is done to prevent another attack, a far worst catastrophe should be expected, and the people of Iran who are a nation holding their breath for a democratic change, will hold those capable of doing something about this situation, completely responsible, for the murder of their brothers and sisters at Camp Ashraf.

Naghmeh Rajabi is a Human Rights Activist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/naghmeh-rajabi/stop-another-bloodbath-at_b_1097015.html

Filed Under: Camp Ashraf, News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Back the Iranian opposition

November 15, 2011 by

THE BALTIMORE SUN

Stop calling MEK a terrorist group and let Iranians transform their own country

The International Atomic Energy Agency‘s latest report about Iran lays bare the true nature of Tehran’s nuclear agenda: an advanced, sophisticated and highly secretive program run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps to build the bomb.

Overwhelming evidence shows a pattern dating back many years of covert activities with significant military involvement that cannot be explained away for any purpose other than building a nuclear warhead. The report contradicts the Iranian regime’s claim that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device,” the IAEA report underscored.

For years, Tehran has been dribbling out information only when confronted, conceding the existence of nuclear sites only after they were exposed by Iran’s main opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and responding to IAEA inquiries only after the fact.

Speculation over what to do about Iran is the topic of the day, but the Iran policy conundrum was not ignited by this or previous IAEA reports, nor is it a matter only for Washington to decide. The West has been engaged in a policy debate for years, in the course of which Europe was pretty much given the lead to deal with Iran, but to no avail.

For three decades, Washington has acted like a pendulum, oscillating between engagement and threats of military action. Given the problematic nature of the latter, engagement has essentially held sway. This has provided the Iranian regime a golden opportunity to rapidly advance its quest for the bomb.

When the European Union started nuclear talks with Iran in 2003, Tehran had not even completed the construction of its only known uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, and it was not enriching uranium. By the time President Barack Obama was sworn in, Iran was already enriching uranium at 3.5 percent levels, thousands of centrifuges had been installed at Natanz, and work was proceeding at a number of nuclear sites.

When President Obama embarked on his campaign to unclench the fist of the ayatollahs and persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, Tehran’s apologists were cheering the anticipated results. Nearly three years later, Tehran is enriching up to 20 percent, is installing centrifuge machines in an underground uranium enrichment facility in Qom, has been experimenting and working on building nuclear warheads, and has enough enriched uranium to make four nuclear weapons, if further enriched to weapon grade.

The moral of the story is that engagement has failed to halt Tehran’s nuclear drive. Sanctions have proven patently insufficient. So can anything be done? The answer is yes.

The opposition MEK has been the source of much of the intelligence about the existence of multiple nuclear sites scattered in different parts of Iran, including the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and the heavy water facility in Arak in 2002; the key nuclear research and development facility in Lavizan-Shian in 2003; the Qom underground enrichment facility in 2005; and other significant sites over the following years directly involved with nuclear weaponization.

Iran saw major uprisings in 2009 lasting several months before being brutally suppressed. Many MEK members were arrested, sentenced to death or hanged for organizing and/or taking part in the anti-government demonstrations.

Currently, Iran’s economy is in shambles, the ruling elite are increasing fighting among themselves and internal dissent has spread.

Little can be done to stop Iran from advancing its ambitious nuclear weapons program without factoring in the Iranian people and their organized opposition committed to replacing the regime with a democratic, secular and non-nuclear republic. This option has the support of a large, bipartisan group of members of Congress who are calling on the State Department to remove the terrorist designation of the MEK, placed on the movement 14 years ago as a goodwill gesture to Tehran. (Dozens of senior former officials of the Obama, Bush and Clinton administrations have made similar calls for delisting the MEK, including a national security adviser, a Homeland Security secretary, three chairs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, directors of the CIA and FBI, a U.S. attorney general, U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations, and counter-terrorism officials.)

Nothing has been more destructive than engagement packaged under different names. Iran’s nuclear clock is ticking. However, there is no need for foreign governments to allocate money, dispatch troops or launch any kind of military action against Tehran.

This is the era of people power, arguably more deeply rooted in Iran than what we have seen in the Arab Spring. It is time for the West, the U.S. in particular, to focus on the third way: change from within, by relying on the people of Iran and their organized opposition movement.

Alireza Jafarzadeh is the author of “The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis.” He exposed the nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak in 2002, which triggered the IAEA inspections of the Iranian nuclear sites. His email is jafarzadeh@spcwashington.com.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-iran-20111115,0,7202013.story

 

Filed Under: Camp Ashraf, News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Don’t abandon Iran opposition

November 15, 2011 by

 THE BOSTON HERALD

U.S. leaves cooperative dissidents hanging

Tom Ridge, the former U.S. secretary of Homeland Security.

The just-released International Atomic Energy Agency report on the Iranian nuclear weapons program should be the final warning to the West: Iran must be dealt with now, before its advanced nuclear weapons program is operational, and while the United States still has viable options for changing the regime in Tehran. However, the news that Iran is developing nuclear weapons isn’t news at all: Western policymakers have been warned of such plans and intentions for years with exacting intelligence from the main Iranian opposition, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (PMOI/MEK).

In 2002, MEK activists risked their lives and revealed the existence of secret nuclear sites in Iran, notably the uranium enrichment site in Natanz. Since then, these activists have played a key role in the international community’s efforts to catch Tehran in its hide-and-seek escapades.

The MEK revealed in 2008 that Tehran’s scientists were working on nuclear warheads in Khojeyr, and in 2009 they unmasked the site where Tehran was working on detonators for implosion. In their latest revelation this past July, the headquarters for coordination of various aspects of nuclear weapons program that was controlled by the dreadful Revolutionary Guards was exposed.

The MEK established the existence of a secret nuclear site at Qom in 2005 — four years before it was announced by leaders of the U.S., United Kingdom and France jointly in 2009. The fact that Iran, under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is moving more advanced centrifuges to this underground site has compounded the concerns. And when the now defunct National Intelligence Estimate in December 2007 claimed that Iran had stopped the nuclear weaponization process, the MEK insisted its information proved the opposite. Time revealed the truth.

The warnings by the Iranian dissidents — most of whose information was at some point corroborated — resulted in precious little action in the West, which lumbered between sanctions and empty threats against the mullahs in Tehran. And instead of showing gratitude, Washington has marginalized the MEK and relegated them to an uncertain future, which may end up in their mass slaughter.

In 1997 the MEK, which at one time advocated the forceable overthrow of the regime in Tehran, was placed on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list as a “goodwill gesture” to open dialogue with the mullahs. Yet the MEK, which had subsequently disarmed and renounced violence against Iran, kept providing first-hand intelligence on Iran’s inner workings, particularly in the nuclear area. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in July 2010 strongly challenged the designation and ordered the State Department to review it.

Dozens of senior former American officials from the past three administrations have urged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to revoke the MEK’s designation. In their call, they have joined more than 100 members of Congress and more than 4,000 parliamentarians around the world. Yet the State Department is still procrastinating.

The unjust designation of MEK as a foreign terrorist organization has set the stage for humanitarian crisis. It has provided an excuse for Iraq — at the behest of the Iranian regime — to oppress, and even massacre, those among the 3,400 Iranian dissidents residing at Camp Ashraf in Iraq who are “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

After two armed assaults by the Iraqi Army on the camp in 2009 and last April — when 36 people were killed and 300 injured — the Iraq government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki set Dec. 31 as the deadline for the camp to close. His only excuse for murdering Iranian dissidents is the blacklisting by the U.S.

Last month, when the Iranian regime was caught plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, President Barack Obama vowed to impose the “toughest sanctions.” Now, the prospect of Tehran’s terror masters being equipped with the most dangerous weapons looms as close as ever.

Given the current state of affairs, sanctions alone would not suffice. The U.S. should adopt a contingency plan, applicable immediately that would include the following steps:

  •  Removing the shackles from the Iranian opposition by removing the terror tag.
  •   Extending the deadline on the residents in Ashraf and preventing any Iraqi action on them.
  •   Imposing sanctions on the Iranian central bank.
  •  Organizing a campaign by our European allies to embargo Iranian oil to choke off the lifeline of the Revolutionary Guard.

Three years ago, then President-elect Obama said, “Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable. We have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening.” The time for action is now, Mr. President.

Tom Ridge is the former U.S. secretary of homeland security.

http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2011_1115dont_abandon_iran_opposition_us_leaves_cooperative_dissidents_hanging

Filed Under: Camp Ashraf, Luminaries, News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Senate Committee Warns about Safety and Security of Camp Ashraf Residents

November 15, 2011 by

In a hearing in the U.S. Senate on Nov 15, 2011, attended by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, the leadership and members of the Committee on Armed Services expressed serious concern for the fate of the residents of Camp Ashraf once the Dec 31 deadline and the withdrawal of the U.S. forces comes about.

 In a bipartisan mood, Senators Karl Levin, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee (D-MI), John McCain (the ranking Republican from Arizona), Senator Bill Lindsey Graham (R- SC ), and Joseph Liberman (Independent-CO) all urged guarantees for the protection of Ashraf residents.

 

Filed Under: Camp Ashraf, News, US Congress Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tensions Mounting for Iranian Exiles Fearful of Another Massacre

November 15, 2011 by

 THE EPOCH TIMES

High-profile former officials tell Secretary Clinton to take the MEK off the terrorist list

General Hugh Shelton, 14th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Iranian exiles in Iraq face a “potentially life-threatening situation.” He spoke at a briefing supporting the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 28. He called upon the State Department to move more quickly in delisting the MEK from the list of foreign terrorist organizations. (Bruce Boyajian/Focus Images

WASHINGTON—When President Obama announced on Oct. 21 that all American combat troops would be out of Iraq by year’s end, no one in Iraq could be more impacted than the people residing in a little known refugee site called Camp Ashraf located 41 miles north of Bagdad, and 66 miles from the Iranian western border. With the U.S. pullout, these refugees are especially worried for their safety.

“Whatever dwindling influence the U.S. Government still retains in Iraq, it will evaporate completely once American forces exit [Iraq],” said Ambassador Mitchell Reiss in Washington, Oct. 28, at a briefing in support of the refugees.

The Maliki government of Iraq has stated it wants Camp Ashraf closed and the refugees deported by the end of the year. The Ashraf residents fear that they will be sent back to Iran, where they were an opposition group, and could be executed. Three Iranians visiting their sons in the camp, upon returning home, were each executed in Dec. 2010 -Jan. 2011.

In the last few days, Iraqi troops in larger numbers have been outside the gates, awakening the residents early in the morning with taunts broadcast through loud speakers. The residents remember April 8 this year, when this kind of harassment was a prelude to the Iraqi military firing on unarmed residents, killing 36 and wounding scores that outside observers called a massacre. There was also an attack in 2010 that killed 11.

“I talked to a very senior member of the Administration today who said, and I quote, ‘If we do not act and act soon, there will be blood on our hands,’” said General Hugh Shelton, 14th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Oct. 28 press conference.

Refugees for 25 years
For 25 years, Camp Ashraf has been the home of 3,400 members of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq or “MEK,” an opposition group to the current Iranian government. The group is also known by other designations: the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) and the MKO.

Because MEK opposed the Iranian theocratic Shiite Islamic Republic, the Sunni Saddam Hussein permitted them in 1986 to base themselves in Iraq. When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, the MEK agreed to a cease-fire with the U.S. and turned in their weapons. In return, the U.S. granted the camp residents “protected persons” status under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

In 2009, the Americans turned over their jurisdiction to the Iraq government. The exiles are now at the mercy of Iraq’s Shiite-led government, which has been courting closer relations with their enemy Iran. It is noteworthy that while on a visit to Iran last June, Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani first made the announcement that Camp Ashraf would be closed by the end of this year.

Since the transfer, the unarmed refugees of the camp have suffered from harassment and incursions from the Iraq government.

UN Protection
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has been accepting petitions from residents of the camp requesting the granting of refugee status. This is only the first step of becoming “asylum seekers.” They need time for the UNHCR to make a determination and process each claim. And they want the UNHCR at the compound to do the processing and act as a buffer to the Iraqi armed forces.

Shelton said the UN needs to have a permanent, full-time monitoring force in place at Camp Ashraf, “to protect the Ashraf residents until a final disposition can be made for their future.”

U.N. envoy Martin Kobler said Nov. 3 at a news conference in Baghdad that he is trying to broker a deal to get more time and better access, according to the AP. At the news conference, an aide to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the Iraq cabinet could extend the deportation deadline, but made no commitment to do so.

Presently, journalists are banned at the compound and the UN has limited access.

At a congressional hearing, Oct. 31, the Chairwoman, House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for assurances that the administration was taking measures to ensure the safety and final resolution of the Camp Ashraf residents. 

Secretary Clinton responded, “With respect to Camp Ashraf, which we deeply are concerned about, we know that there is an on-going and very legitimate expression of concern. We have elicited written assurances from government of Iraq that it will treat Ashraf residents humanely, that it will not transfer the residents to a country that they may have reasons to fear.” 

Delisting MEK
One reason that the residents of Camp Ashraf have been harassed, killed and had difficulties moving to a third country is that MEK is listed by the Department of State as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). The supporters of the MEK say it was done for political reasons in 1997. The U.S. was hoping to engage the reform movement that was seemingly taking hold in Iran with the election of moderate Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, the predecessor of Ahmadinejad.

“The whole reason the MEK was kept on the list was an appeasement to Ahmadinejad, because we thought with false hope that this would allow the United States to provide some meaningful dialogue with a repressive regime,” said former Deputy Director of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service John Sano at the pro-MEK briefing.

Many former senior U.S. officials who have served in the administrations of presidents Obama, Bush and Clinton have called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to delist the MEK.

Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, former National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton and Peter Pace, Former Attorney General Mukasey, former FBI Director Louis Freeh and ex-chairman of the Democratic National Committee Gov. Howard Dean have spoken publicly for the Iranian resistance group. 

In Congress, there is bipartisan support, including Bob Filner (D.-Calif.), Dana Rohrabacher (R.-Calif.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D.-Tex.), Ted Poe (R.-Tex.), and John Lewis (D-Ga.) 

These high-profile officials believe that a dialogue with the mullahs ruling Iran is futile. The regime continues with its nuclear program and sponsoring worldwide terrorism. Regime change is the only pathway to peacefully resolving our differences with Iran, they say. The MEK is perceived as a legitimate resistance movement to the Iranian regime. Removing the terrorist label will enable the group to legally raise funds in the U.S. and more easily relocate to other countries. 

The U.K. and European Union removed the MEK from their terrorist lists in 2008 and 2009, respectively.

Louis Freeh said that when the Clinton administration put MEK on the list, he was director of the F.B.I. and they opposed it. The designation of FTO was retained during the Bush administration because we were told Iran would diminish the number of IEDs used against American troops in Iraq, which didn’t happen, he said on Fox news.

U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said July 7 at a Congressional hearing on the April 8 massacre, “So long as MEK remains mistakenly designated as a foreign terrorist organization, the forces in the Iraqi government that favor accommodation with Iran … can use that designation to support their violence against the group.” 

Freeh noted the irony of the State Department list of 49 terrorist organizations that doesn’t include the Haqqani Network or Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, which have killed thousands of Americans troops, while an unarmed group is persecuted.

The State Department’s unclassified report on the MEK stresses the violence in the 1970s and 1980s but nothing is mentioned of the last decade. MEK says it has disarmed and renounced violence for more than a decade. Under the rules for being put on the FTO list, the State Department must reevaluate when circumstances change. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals in a ruling in July 2010 said that the State Department did not use “due process” with the MEK designation and said that MEK should have had the opportunity to rebut the unclassified information used for its designation.

Daily, Shelton and Sano said at the pro-MEK briefing that they concluded there was no evidence of terrorism by the MEK. 

Secretary Clinton acknowledged that the European Union had overturned the terrorist designation but said on VOA’s Parazit TV Show, Oct 26, “We’re still assessing the evidence here in the United States.” 

Supporters of the MEK are growing impatient for Secretary Clinton to make a decision, with the clock ticking as the year winds down and the imminent threat of yet another massacre justified by the terrorist label.

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) said Oct. 28 to Clinton, “You’re not doing as much as you can. It’s been 500 days since the court has ordered us to reconsider this terrorist designation and that should be plenty of time to understand what the issues are.”

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/tensions-mounting-for-iranian-exiles-fearful-of-another-massacre-142241.html

Filed Under: Camp Ashraf, News, US Congress Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Policy, Human Rights Scholars Urge Congressional Action to Avert Massacre at Camp Ashraf after US Troop Withdrawal

November 15, 2011 by

PRNewswire

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — At a briefing in the US Senate, entitled “US Troop Drawdown in Iraq: 50 Days to Impending Humanitarian Catastrophe at Camp Ashraf,” Professor Ruth Wedgwood, Director of the International Law and Organizations Program of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University; Professor Raymond Tanter, former Senior Staff on the National Security Council and President of Iran Policy Committee; Bruce McColm, former Executive Director of the Freedom House; and Colonel Wesley Martin, USA (Ret.), former senior anti-terrorism/force-protection officer for Coalition forces in Iraq and Commandant of Camp Ashraf, outlined specific actions the US Congress should take before the Iraqi government’s December 31 deadline to close down Camp Ashraf to prevent another massacre and facilitate the residents’ re-settlement to third countries.

Describing the prospect of large-scale slaughter in Camp Ashraf by the Iraqi forces with the departure of US forces as “Srebrenica part 2,” Prof. Wedgwood said, “We don’t like leaving the Marines behind and we shouldn’t leave behind people to whom we promised protection when they disarmed themselves… So I think if anybody in the White House were listening… or Hillary Clinton… They can’t just walk away from a promise like that without some significant disgrace.”

In regards to resettling Ashraf residents, Prof. Wedgwood added, “If we don’t lead nobody will. And if we conspicuously stand down from leadership everybody uses that as a safe pass to avoid going to jail… When adversary senses weakness they act on it. And it takes that kind of American fortitude which I think Barack Obama has… and I think Secretary Clinton would not want to be passive in the face of, any repetition of the Srebrenica.”

Referring to the statement by Senator John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair, who described the April 8th attack on Ashraf a “massacre,” Prof. Tanter stressed, “This kind of public statement is precisely what is necessary in order to raise this issue to the top of the radar screen of American politics, of American international politics.”

Mr. McColm remarked that “the United States the European Union, the UN and the residents of Camp Ashraf agreed that the UNHCR should register and interview each resident in the Camp so that they could be repatriated as refugees to third countries… The problem is that Prime Minister Maliki wants to close Camp Ashraf by the end of December. They want to disperse the residents inside Iraq and even want to return some to Iran which is against international law.”

Col. Martin dismissed the “hollow assurances” Prime Minister Maliki has given the United States to treat Ashraf residents humanely. “We need the State Department held accountable…The deadline needs to be extended with the United Nations’ Blue Helmets on the ground,” he emphasized.

SOURCE Iranian-American Community of Northern California

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/policy-human-rights-scholars-urge-congressional-action-to-avert-massacre-at-camp-ashraf-after-us-troop-withdrawal-according-to-iranian-american-community-of-northern-california-133922633.html

Filed Under: Camp Ashraf, News, US Congress Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Defense chief clashes with senators over Iraq

November 15, 2011 by

REUTERS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Defense Secretary Leon Panetta rejected accusations at a heated Senate hearing on Tuesday that U.S. politics helped drive the decision to completely withdraw from Iraq this year without leaving any troops behind as trainers.

A woman listens to proceedings during a hearing held by the Senate Armed Services Committee on security issues relating to Iraq on Capitol Hill in Washington November 15, 2011. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

The October 21 drawdown announcement by President Barack Obama followed failed negotiations with Baghdad to secure an immunity deal that the Pentagon made a precondition for keeping any U.S. military trainers in the country.

Panetta put the blame squarely on Iraqi politics, with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki unable to push an immunity deal through parliament.

But prominent Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee questioned whether U.S. politics also played a role, with Obama – an early opponent of the Iraq war who campaigned on a promise to end it – facing a re-election battle in 2012.

In a particularly heated exchange, Senator John McCain flatly told Panetta he did not believe his version of events. He suggested that the Obama administration failed to provide Iraq the facts and figures it needed to make a decision.

“The truth is that this administration was committed to the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. And they made it happen,” said McCain, who lost the 2008 election to Obama.

Panetta responded forcefully: “Senator McCain, that’s just simply not true. I guess you can believe that … but that’s not true.”

General Martin Dempsey, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the top U.S. military officer, said he and others at the highest level of the Pentagon had been encouraged by Panetta and Panetta’s predecessor, Robert Gates, to lobby Iraqi military leaders to accept some sort of training mission.

“We were all asked to engage our counterparts, encourage them to accept some small permanent footprint,” Dempsey said.

TIDE OF WAR “RECEDING”

The Iraq withdrawal announcement followed a June decision by Obama to bring a third of American troops home from Afghanistan by the end of next summer – a faster pace than the U.S. military had recommended. During both announcements, Obama assured Americans that, after a decade of constant conflict, the tide of war was receding.

The two decisions have fueled criticism by Republicans that Obama is ignoring battleground realities in order to bring the two costly, bloody wars to a conclusion.

“I think it’s no accident that the troops are coming home (from Afghanistan) two months before his (2012) election,” said Senator Lindsey Graham.

“And if you believe that to be true, as I do, I don’t think it’s an accident that we got to zero (in Iraq).”

Asked by Graham whether questions about fallout from Obama’s Democratic base ever came up in discussions on Iraq, Panetta replied: “Not in any discussions that I participated (in).”

Graham and other lawmakers raised concerns about the fate of 3,000 Iranian refugees at Camp Ashraf in Iraq once U.S. forces withdrew. The camp is a base of the People’s Mujahideen Organization, a group that opposes the Tehran government and launched attacks into Iran before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Baghdad has been seeking to close the camp and rights groups say the residents have been harassed and denied access to basic medicine by the Baghdad government.

“Do you think the people in Camp Ashraf, do you think they’re going to get killed? What’s going to happen to them?” Graham asked.

Dempsey said U.S. diplomats were working to ensure Iraqis provided protection for the refugees. Lawmakers warned that if Baghdad violated its commitment to protect them it would lead to strained relations with Congress.

About 24,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, down from a peak of about 190,000 during the height of former President George W. Bush’s troop surge in 2007.

Panetta and Dempsey acknowledged that Iraqi security forces will face numerous challenges once U.S. troops withdrew.

Dempsey said he saw a moderate risk of an Arab-Kurdish conflict over the oil reserves around Kirkuk. He also cited the important role U.S. surveillance and transport aircraft played in counter-terrorism missions.

Still, he and Panetta expressed optimism over Iraq’s ability to grapple with its own challenges and the ability to deal with Iranian. Panetta said he believed Maliki saw Iran as “having a destabilizing influence in that part of the world.”

“My view is that the region largely rejects Iran and its intentions. And I think Iraq is at the top of that list,” Panetta said.

(Editing by Paul Simao)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/15/us-usa-iraq-idUSTRE7AE2K920111115

Filed Under: Camp Ashraf, News, US Congress Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,