Acting at the behest of the religious dictatorship ruling Iran, Maliki announces 126 arrest warrants for the residents of Ashraf and accuses them of terrorism, ruthless crimes inside Iraq and murder of political and religious figures in Iran

For the third time, Mrs. Rajavi urges the convening of an international conference, attended by SRSG, Ashraf lawyers, the Iraqi and U.S. governments; the EU, UNHCR, OHCHR and European Parliament, in order to salvage the peaceful solution. She calls for immediate action by the UN Secretary General and the Security Council

In an interview with the Iranian regime’s official media, broadcast widely on the state radio and television network on January 12, including Channel 1, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, using the mullahs’ loathsome lexicon, said, “The Monafeqin [sic] (hypocrites) are a completely terrorist grouplet [sic] and the first group of them will be transferred in a few days from Camp Ashraf to a base formerly run by the Americans so that the preliminary work for their exit from this country can be performed. We stress that in less than four months from now, no Monafeq [sic] will remain in Iraq. After that Camp Ashraf will be closed and the land will be returned to its owners.”

He told the Iranian regime’s English language Television, Press TV, “We will no longer tolerate the presence of the MKO [sic] on Iraqi soil. This is an international sanctioned terrorist organization. It has not only carried out assassinations against political and religious personalities in Iran, but it also has a bloody history in Iraq. It has collaborated with the former Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein. MKO [sic] has committed brutal crimes inside Iraq. Until today we have received 126 arrest warrants for MKO [sic] members in Camp Ashraf that are accused of committing horrendous crimes…” 

And the Iranian regime’s Central News Unit and the IRGC-run Fars News Agency quoted him as saying, “Iraqis consider the Monafeqin [sic] as terrorists and criminals and don’t want this criminal group to remain on their soil… In April there will no longer be a Camp Ashraf and its land will be returned to its original owners… An Iraqi court has issued the arrest warrant of 121 members of the Monafeqin [sic] for complicity in terrorist affairs and these persons are still in Ashraf.” 

Earlier, in its January 2 and 9 statements, the Iranian Resistance had warned of the efforts by the Iranian regime to cause the failure of the peaceful solution for the Ashraf crisis. It had declared, “The National Council of Resistance of Iran has obtained reports and documents from within the mullahs’ regime which clearly bespeak of the conspiracies and efforts by the regime and its operatives in Iraq to cause the failure of the solution for the Ashraf crisis, upon which Secretary Clinton and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had underscored. The objective is to build a prison named “Liberty” with the UN cover.”

The Iranian Resistance has so far issued 10 statements, addressing specific cases of the Iraqi government’s violations of its commitments to the United Nations.

Today’s remarks by Maliki are a clear testament to the veracity of those warnings. They also foretell of the project to destroy the Iranian opposition at a time when the clerical regime, in order to preserve its survival, cornered by expanding international sanctions and the uprisings by the Syrian people, has resorted to building nuclear weapons and to crush its principal opposition force through its Iraqi proxies.

Maliki’s remarks blatantly trample upon the Memorandum of Understanding signed on December 25 between the Iraqi government and the UN Secretary General’s Special Representative, Ambassador Martin Kobler, and the latter’s December 28 letter to the residents of Camp Ashraf.

Mrs. Rajavi expressed regret and objection over the Iraqi government’s litany of unlawful actions as well as successive violations of international law and conventions, particularly as they relate to breaching the principle of Responsibility to Protect about Camp Ashraf.

For the third time, she urged the convening of an international conference attended by SRSG, Ashraf lawyers, the Iraqi and U.S. governments; the EU, UNHCR, OHCHR and European Parliament, in order to salvage the peaceful solution. Mrs. Rajavi called on the Secretary General and the Security Council to take action to this end before it is too late.

Secretariat of the National Council of Resistance of Iran
January 13, 2012

http://www.ncr-iran.org/en/ncri-statements/ashraf/11616-maliki-tramples-upon-iraqi-governments-agreement-with-the-united-nations-on-camp-ashraf

NCRI – In an international conference held in Paris on Friday,  December 6 in defense of Ashraf, Gov. Ed Rendell, Chair of the Democratic National Committee (1999-2001) and Governor of Pennsylvania (2002-2011) stressed that there are no doubts that the United States has moral and legal responsibility with regards to the residents of Ashraf.  He said, “there are two words that the United States and the United Nations haven’t used that have to be used and those two words are “why” and “no.””

“First of all, we should have used the word “no” when it came to the Iraqi government’s objection to having United Nations blue helmets or U.S. troops protecting the residents of Ashraf until they were relocated.  That was the first mistake.”
 
“We didn’t ask the Iraqis why they objected to that.  Because there’s no good reason for them to object to that.  And then we didn’t ask a second question, why relocate out of Camp Ashraf at all?  Why?  What was wrong what harm was being done to the Iraqi government by having these 3,400 people live peacefully, controlling their own destiny, paying for their own expenses, living peacefully, endangering and threatening no one in this camp? ”

“Why was it necessary to move them? ”

“Why couldn’t the UNHCR have done its work in Camp Ashraf?  We were told that was unacceptable but nobody told us why.
 
What possible reason was relocation necessary?  Why couldn’t the goals, if the Iraqis are honest that they want these people out, why couldn’t it have been done in Camp Ashraf?  Why didn’t we ask that question?  And getting no good answer, why didn’t we just have a little backbone and say, “No, they’re staying in Camp Ashraf until the relocation process is done.”  We didn’t ask that question.

But if in fact the Iraqis’ goal is to turn this into a prison, if in fact their actions are no more than punitive to the residents of Ashraf, if in fact that punitive action is no more than an attempt to appease Tehran again, if in fact that’s the case, then the U.N. and the United States of America have to use the word “no” to relocation. ”
 
“We have to stand behind the residents when they say, “No, we’re not going to a place that doesn’t have adequate facilities.  We’re not going to a place that is a de facto prison camp.  We’re not going to a place where it means we’re losing our personal assets and millions of dollars of personal property.”

John Bolton, the former US Ambassador to United Nations and former Under Secretary of State said: “Difficulties with dealing with the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq, in part is because it sees itself as accredited to the government of Iraq.  Part of its objective is to make sure it gets along with the government of Iraq.  So I think it’s very important to persuade the UN ambassador  and the UN bureaucracy in New York that their principal responsibility is not making the government of Iraq happy, it’s protecting the residents of Camp Ashraf. ”

“Another point is that  UNAMI is not the only element of the United Nations involved here.”

“Also for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees,  protection and assistance for the refugees comes before anything else until they’re either moved to other countries or they can go back to their own country without fear of persecution”
 
“In the world of the UNHCR, Camp Ashraf is not a problem. It  is an interim solution and what a stain  of this Nobel Peace Prize winning agency to preside over a degradation in the living status and freedom and welfare of refugees.”

In another part of his speech, regarding the need to delist the PMOI/MEK fJohn Bolton said: “the State Department has not been strong in carrying out its responsibilities to honor America’s own word.     If the State Department has facts that justify the listing, let’s hear them.  If it doesn’t have any facts, delist the MEK and remove this pretense that Iran and the Al-Maliki government use to try to pressure the residents of Camp Ashraf.”

Secretariat of the National Council of Resistance of Iran
January 7, 2012

Mrs. Rajavi: Through the UN and particularly the SGSR, the international community can provide the basic necessary assurances for Ashraf residents

NCRI – In an international conference held in Paris on Friday, January 6, at the invitation of the CFID (French Committee for Democracy and Human Rights in Iran), dozens of distinguished American and European dignitaries warned of obstructions and non-cooperation by the Iranian regime and Government of Iraq in guaranteeing a peaceful solution for Camp Ashraf, where members of the Iranian opposition reside in Iraq.

Condemning these obstructions, the conference supported and endorsed a proposal by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi for a special conference to be held in Paris, Brussels or Geneva, to be presided over by the UN Secretary General’s Special Representative for Iraq (SGSR); and attended by herself or Camp Ashraf representatives; authoritative Iraqi officials; Amb. Daniel Fried, Secretary Clinton’s Special Representative on Camp Ashraf; the representative of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad for Camp Ashraf; Amb. Jean de-Ruyt, Baroness Ashton’s Special Envoy on Camp Ashraf; a representative of the UNHCR; European Parliament Vice President Dr. Alejo Vidal Quadras; and Struan Stevenson MEP. The speakers condemned the Iraqi government for preventing the representative of Ashraf residents in taking part in discussions over their fate, and they reiterated that Mrs. Rajavi’s proposed session could result in a text agreed to by the Ashraf residents about the necessities for and manner of relocation thereby making up to some extent for this regrettable exclusion.

The conference speakers were Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the Iranian Resistance; Gov. Howard Dean, former Governor Vermont, Chair of the Democratic National Committee (2005-2009) and US presidential candidate (2004);  Gov. Tom Ridge, former Governor of Pennsylvania and the first US Homeland Security Secretary (2003-2005); Louis Freeh, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (1993-2001); Gov. Ed Rendell, Chair of the Democratic National Committee (1999-2001) and Governor of Pennsylvania (2002-2011); Judge Michael Mukasey, US Attorney General in the Bush Administration (2007-2009); Ambassador Mitchell Reiss, former Director of Policy Planning at the US Department of State; General James Conway, Commandant of the US Marine Corps (2006-2010); Rep. Patrick Kennedy, Member of US House of Representatives (1995-2011); Gen. Chuck Wald, former Deputy Commander of US European Command; Gen. David Phillips, Commander of U.S. Military Police (2008-2011); Prof. Alan Dershowitz, one of the most prominent advocates of individual rights and the most well-known lawyer in criminal cases in the world; Ambassador Dell Dailey, Head of the State Department’s counterterrorism office (2007-09); Col. Wesley Martin, former Senior Anti-terrorism Force Protection Officer for all Coalition Forces in Iraq and Commander of Forward Operation Base  in Ashraf; Prof. Ruth Wedgwood, Chair of International Law and Diplomacy at Johns Hopkins University; Philippe Douste-Blazy, Former French Foreign Minister and to the UN Secretary General; Alain Vivien, former French Minister of State for European Affairs; Rita Süssmuth, former President of German Bundestag; Günter Verheugen, European Commissioner (1999-2010) and former Advisory Minister in German Foreign Ministry; and Sen. Lucio Malan, Member of Italian Senate.

Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, welcomed the magnificent achievements of the campaign in defense of Ashraf which foiled the plots of the religious fascism ruling Iran for massacre of Ashraf residents and said: “The attempt by the UN to resolve the Ashraf crisis has won international support. However, the mullahs’ regime resorts to continued provocations to disturb the situation and destroy the achieved solution. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is repeatedly breaching its commitments to the United Nations, such as: preventing the residents to transfer their property, particularly their vehicles, to the new location; reducing the area of Camp Liberty from 40 sq km to less than 1 sq km; installing high concrete walls and practically transforming the site into a prison. The goal of the rocket attacks, communication-jamming devices, spying stations, daily gathering of agents of the mullahs’ Intelligence Ministry and Qods Force, threatening the residents and looting their property is to force the residents to relocate to a place which would effectively be a prison. However any direct or indirect pressure on the residents for forcible relocation and accepting prison conditions is a red line for them, and the Iranian regime is behind such actions.”

In a letter to the UN Secretary General, signed by all of the residents, they said: “The current drive to relocate us is being done under constraint, against our free choice and will, and while we do not have the minimum assurances for our safety and security. While reaffirming our full respect for Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as our willingness to leave Iraq as soon as having the opportunity, we urge you to ensure that all our rights are respected in conformity with the IV Geneva Convention, in particular the right to life, freedom and security, in accordance to international human rights law and international humanitarian law.”

Mrs. Rajavi said that the 5-month delay in commencing the work of the UNHCR in Ashraf is absolutely unacceptable and incomprehensible and in blatant contradiction of the deadline and accelerated efforts for the departure of members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) from Iraq. Making the UNHCR process conditional upon the residents’ transfer to Camp Liberty is clearly the demand of the Iranian regime whose goal is to obliterate Ashraf residents instead of relocating them to third countries. There are currently more than 1,000 former political prisoners and close to 1,000 refugees from third countries in Ashraf whose cases the UNHCR could immediately facilitate. However this process has been delayed since August when High Commissioner Antonio Guterres wrote to the Prime Minister of Iraq.

The President-elect of the Iranian Resistance reiterated that undoubtedly the international community, through the UN and specifically the SGSR, could if it so wished and chose defend the human rights values that it has said is its main focus and provide the minimum necessary assurances for the Ashraf residents.

Maryam Rajavi added: “Although the West’s efforts to impose sanctions against the Iranian regime are a positive step, however, this is not the answer to the regime’s nuclear threat. No policy can be effective against the central banker of terrorism unless it seeks a change of this religious fascism, and no factor has been more effective in extending the life of this regime than the terrorist label against its main opposition.”

Gov. Dean said: “The USA is not only morally, but legally, responsible for what happens to the 3,400 unarmed civilians in Camp Ashraf. Each of the residents has a paper from the US government saying we will accept responsibility to protect them. … I believe we have a legal obligation to delist the MEK (PMOI).”

Gov. Ridge said: “The residents of Ashraf have very legitimate demands. … The new location (Camp Liberty) doesn’t sound like a resettlement camp. It sounds more like a prison.”

Gov. Rendell said: “We should have asked why the residents couldn’t have stayed in Camp Ashraf until the relocation process for going to third countries was complete. And why when we received no good answers did we not say no. What was the reason for going from a 40sq km site to a 1 sq km site?”

Amb. Bolton said: “The UN needs to be made to understand that its primary responsibility is not to the Iraqi government but to the residents of Camp Ashraf.”

Judge Mukasey said: “We came to this point because Nuri al-Maliki formed a completely arbitrary deadline for the removal of Camp Ashraf residents.”

Mr. Freeh said: “There has been no thought behind the implementation of the plan to relocate Ashraf residents to Camp Liberty, where there is no infrastructure or facilities; no water or electricity.”

The Speakers welcomed the responsible and accommodating positions of Mrs Rajavi and the Camp Ashraf leadership for avoiding further bloodshed. They stressed that preventing representatives of Ashraf from taking part in the negotiations and not accepting Mrs Rajavi’s proposal for her traveling to Baghdad to take part in the negotiations aim to even degenerate the role of the UN to an ineffective facilitator so that in the next step it could be used as a tool in arranging a forcible displacement. That means achieving the same vicious aim of repeating the bloodshed but with a UN cover.

The speakers also revealed a long list of cases of obfuscation and violations by Iraq of its commitments, which exposed the intent of the Iraqi government. Among these violations are:

Iraqi government’s prevention of a trip by Ambassador Jean de Ruyt to Iraq and Ashraf, various efforts to involve the Iranian regime in the file of Ashraf, reducing the size of the area allocated to Ashraf residents in Camp Liberty from 40 sq km to less that 1 sq km, freedom of action for agents of the Iranian intelligence ministry and Qods Force around Ashraf and constant threats to the residents, and a continued ban on the entry of residents’ relatives and lawyers to Ashraf.

Secretariat of the National Council of Resistance of Iran
January 6, 2012

REUTERS

PARIS (Reuters) – The leader of an Iranian dissident group in Iraq said Friday the United States would be responsible for any harm that came to 3,000 of its members who could be forcefully moved to a camp outside Baghdad that they describe as a prison.

Maryam Rajavi, who heads the People’s Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI), had in principle backed a proposal to begin moving the residents of Camp Ashraf based on assurances from both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the United Nations that their safety and security would be respected.

Mortars hit the camp at the end of last year, just days after Baghdad extended a December 31 deadline for the facility to be closed as the United Nations negotiated resettlement of its residents.

Rajavi said, contrary to what had been agreed as part of a U.N. deal, Iraqi authorities were turning the proposed new camp, previously a U.S. military base, into a prison.

“The U.S. has adopted irresponsible positions vis–vis the criminal and unlawful actions of Iraq against the residents of Ashraf,” she told about 1,000 of her supporters, who had gathered in Paris from across Europe. “The U.S. government would be completely responsible for any harm to the residents.”

Ashraf, 65 km from Baghdad, has been home for 25 years to the PMOI, an Iranian opposition group the United States and Iran officially consider a terrorist organization, which makes relocating its members to other countries difficult.

Rajavi’s opposition group, exiled in Paris, invited dozens of former high-ranking U.S. and European officials — including ex-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, ex-Federal Bureau of Investigation chief Louis Freeh and General David Phillips, a former commander responsible for protecting Camp Ashraf — to speak on its behalf.

She called for a special conference that would gather players from all sides to break the impasse.

“At end of the Bush administration the recommendation of the coordinator for counter-terrorism was to delist the group, but Condoleeza Rice kept them on the list in hope of facilitating negotiations with the regime in Iran,” Bolton told Reuters, adding that he saw no reason to keep the group on a terror list.

NOT A SIDE ISSUE

Camp Ashraf’s future became unclear after Washington turned it over to the Iraqi government in 2009, a move that provoked a backlash in the United States, with former officials saying the country had broken promises to protect the residents.

Baghdad has repeatedly said it does not want the group on Iraqi soil.

The United Nations, along with the European Union, has been trying to resolve the issue. The mortars fell just a week after the last U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq, almost nine years after the 2003 invasion.

The PMOI’s political arm, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), has blamed the rockets on the Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps “and its Iraqi agents,” although Baghdad has not said who was behind the attacks.

In the 1970s the group, which is also known as the Mujahadin-e Khalq (MEK), led a guerrilla campaign against the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran, including attacks on U.S. targets. It says it has since renounced violence.

“Ashraf is not a side issue,” said 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. “We gave our word to protect them. When the U.S. makes a promise it should keep it.”

(Reporting By John Irish; Editing by Roger Atwood)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-iran-ashraf-ustre8051sw-20120106,0,2351209.story

PRNewswire

WASHINGTON, Jan. 5, 2012  /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ —  The U.S. Committee for Camp Ashraf Residents (USCCAR) condemns ploys by the Iranian regime to undermine the internationally-endorsed peaceful, albeit fragile, resolution to the humanitarian crisis at Camp Ashraf in Iraq. USCCAR is alarmed by disturbing reports from Iraq indicating that the Iraqi government is already reneging on its agreement with the United Nations to uphold the human rights of Camp’s residents and is building a prison in Camp Liberty to move our loved ones there.

The Committee calls on the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to immediately intervene and remind the Iraqi government of its obligations toward Camp Ashraf residents, consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) it signed with the UN Secretary General’s Special Representative for Iraq, Ambassador Martin Kobler, on December 25 and based on international law. We also ask Secretary Clinton to facilitate a visit to Camp Liberty by a delegation of U.S. citizens who have close relatives in Camp Ashraf to meet their loved ones immediately after they arrive from Ashraf.

There is hardly any doubt that if left to its own devices, the Iraqi government will merely implement directives issued by office of mullahs’ Supreme leader Ali Khamenei and Iranian regime’s Embassy in Baghdad against the Iranian dissidents at Camp Ashraf.

We must reiterate that the official and the internationally recognized status of the residents of Ashraf is “formal asylum seekers” according to the September 2011 declaration by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The declaration certifies that under international law the “asylum seekers” of Camp Ashraf must be able to benefit from basic protection of their security and well-being. Furthermore, Camp Ashraf residents were recognized as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention in 2004 by the coalition forces. This status entitles the residents to specific rights and safeguards.

Absent minimum guarantees for the basic rights and safety of Camp Ashraf “asylum seekers” as stipulated in the MOU, we have asked our Members of Congress to urge Secretary Clinton to oppose the relocation of our loved ones to Camp Liberty until these guarantees are provided. However, subsequent to a December 28 appeal by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the camp’s residents announced the readiness of 400 residents to transfer to Camp Liberty with their vehicles and portable belongings necessary for a minimum standard of living for “asylum seekers.” This good faith measure on the part of the residents serves as a test of Iraqi government’s sincerity for a peaceful resolution of the humanitarian crisis in Camp Ashraf before the remaining residents relocate to Camp Liberty.

Any plan to transfer the “asylum seekers” and “protected persons” of Camp Ashraf to an Iraq-run detention facility, cordoned off with concrete walls and inaccessible by the residents’ lawyers and their families, is a ploy to humiliate and suppress the residents and fulfill Tehran’s wishes. Such a plan would, therefore, be a “forced relocation” and contrary to specific stipulations by the UN Secretary General and his Special Representative in Iraq who have insisted that this will be a “voluntary relocation.”

We call on Secretary Clinton to press Baghdad to abide by the commitments she stipulated in her December 25 statement on “Situation at Ashraf” in which she stressed the United States “expects it [the Iraqi government] to fulfill all its responsibilities, especially the elements of the MOU that provide for the safety and security of Ashraf’s residents.”

SOURCE: U.S. Committee for Camp Ashraf Residents (USCCAR)

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/usccar-warns-of-iraqs-intention-to-transfer-camp-ashraf-asylum-seekers-to-a-would-be-prison-at-camp-liberty-calls-on-secretary-clinton-to-intervene-immediately-136725903.html

WALESonLINE

THE HUFFINGTON POST

The first test has been met, and the 3400 Iranian dissidents at Camp Ashraf in Iraq have been saved from being massacred or be dispersed throughout Iraq and then be massacred. But many more tests lie ahead, and the world community will be watching.

Resolution of the tense standoff between the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI/MEK) and the Government of Iraq began on 25 December, when the United Nations and Iraq agreed on a plan to move the dissidents at Camp Ashraf to an abandoned US military base near Baghdad called Camp Liberty. However, the dissidents were understandably wary of any promise from the government of Nouri al-Maliki and needed assurances from world bodies before agreeing to a move that might expose them to attack. 

Finally, with pledges of security and well being of the residents from UN, EU and US leaders, the president-elect of the Iranian Resistance, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, announced “a gesture of goodwill” under which 400 Ashraf residents were willing to go to Camp Liberty.

Reaching this point took lots of flexibility by the Iranian opposition leader and great efforts by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, EU High Representative Baroness Ashton, and UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres. These leaders have put their own credibility on the line, so it can be hoped that they will follow through.

Actually Tehran mullahs were hoping that they would entrap the opposition in Ashraf by 31 December, have them massacred and then point their fingers to the opposition leaders as those who caused the human catastrophe.

They were looking for a win-win situation. But their hand was called and rebuffed.

So far, so good. But many treacherous roads lie ahead.

First, of course, is the threat of more attacks on Camp Ashraf by either Iraqi troops, acting at the behest of the Iranian mullahs, or by rocket-firing Iranian agents. Such attacks have occurred at least three times since the UN-Iraq agreement was reached.

Next is the continued safe movement of all 3400 Ashraf residents, who have to travel in convoys over territory where bombing and other attacks have been taking place with greater frequency since the U.S. pulled its last combat troops out of Iraq.

That’s why Secretary Clinton’s December 25 statement is so important and why it helped lead Mrs. Rajavi to ask her followers at Ashraf to go to Camp Liberty. Clinton stressed their “safety and security” and said that “officials from U.S. Embassy Baghdad will visit (Camp Liberty) regularly and frequently.”

If everything goes according to plan – and that’s a big ‘if’ – and all Ashraf residents are moved safely to Camp Liberty with all their movable belongings, in order to prevent any recurrence of violence the minimum humanitarian and legal guarantees including halting any persecution and harassment of the residents and the annulment of forged warrants of arrests without exception, and that Iraqi forces shall be stationed outside of fenced area of the new location to ensure security and tranquility, particularly for nearly 1,000 Muslim women, must be met.

From there, the next phase of their odyssey can begin.

All have applied for political asylum. The UN refugee agency has wanted to process their requests for months, but the Maliki government has blocked such action. Hopefully, at Camp Liberty, with US and UN protection, such processing can move forward.

Here too, though, there is a major hang-up. That’s the placement of the MEK on the list of Foreign Terrorist Organisations by the U.S. State Department, a move taken 15 years ago in an attempt to mollify Tehran. This case proves that appeasement doesn’t work; the mullahs didn’t budge in their hatred of the U.S. and are pushing for nuclear weapons and threatening to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The objective is to allow the Camp Ashraf refugees to relocate in third countries, but while they’re on the terror list, the U.S. and its allies cannot take them in.

The MEK fought for years to be de-listed and it has succeeded in the European Union and the United Kingdom, where courts ruled that there was no basis for such a designation.

In the U.S., a federal Court of Appeals also agreed that the listing is wrong, but only the State Department can remove the MEK from the list. Ironically, at the end of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, after the MEK voluntarily disarmed, U.S. officials interrogated every single Ashraf resident and found them eligible for protection under the Geneva Accords. The U.S. Congress and dozens of senior former U.S. national security officials in a rare bipartisan campaign are all for the delisting.

So what is the State Department waiting for?

Secretary Clinton has been strong in her humanitarian efforts on behalf the Ashraf residents. Now, it is time for her to apply both the law of reason and constitutional law and remove the MEK from the list of terror organizations.

Actually, it never has been a terror organization. But rather than focus on past actions, the U.S. should just move forward. It knows that Tehran is not a friend and that Tehran fears the MEK (which is why the mullahs have prevailed on their Iraqi ‘friend’ Maliki to try to obliterate Ashraf).

It should remove the fetters from the MEK so that it can continue to fight for a democratic Iran.

David Amess is member of Parliament for Southend West and member of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-amess/the-world-is-watching-iraq-on-camp-ashraf_b_1180513.html

Iranian Resistance requests Secretary Clinton and UN Secretary General to undertake appropriate measures to ensure the success of US, UN, EU and UNHCR efforts, which are being seriously threatened by the Iranian regime

NCRI – In separate statements, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and EU High Representative Baroness Catherine Ashton welcomed the peaceful and humanitarian solution for Camp Ashraf crisis according to international law. The international community, including the governments of Canada, Italy, France, the United Kingdom and Germany also welcomed this solution. On December 28, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the Iranian Resistance issued a statement on the readiness of 400 Camp Ashraf residents to relocate to Camp Liberty with their vehicles and moveable assets on December 30, 2011.

Simultaneously, the religious dictatorship ruling Iran, in an attempt to destroy its principal opposition, has embarked on an all-out effort to undermine the peaceful and mutually satisfactory solution for the Camp Ashraf crisis. In doing so, it is following two objectives: to pressure the Iraqi government to breach its commitments and to blame the residents of Camp Ashraf, the leadership of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) and the Iranian Resistance. From all indications, the Iranian regime and its operatives in Iraq are working to this end.

1. On December 24, a unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp’s terrorist Qods Force, under the command of General Iraj Masjedi, the Qods Force’s Chief of Staff, and another delegation, headed by Brig. Gen. Hassan Kazemi Qomi, a Qod Force commander and former Ambassador to Iraq, travelled to Baghdad and discussed the issue of the PMOI and Camp Ashraf. Subsequently, missiles were launched at Camp Ashraf.

2. 107mm rockets were fired at Camp Ashraf on December 25, 27 and 28.

3. Kazem Jalali, Chair of the regime’s Parliamentary Security Committee, explicitly demanded the murder and destruction of PMOI members in Iraq. “It would be better to punish these criminals and make them pay for their crimes,” he told the state-run Mehr News Agency on December 24.

4. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s mouthpiece, the daily Kayhan, acting on behalf of Iraqi officials as well as security and judiciary agencies, wrote, “So far, 258 legal cases have been filed against PMOI members in Iraq.” This item was reprinted in the state-run media, including Ressalat in Tehran on January 1, 2012.
5. On December 31, the regime’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), announced through one of its  websites, www.Iran-Interlink.org, that even if the residents of Camp Ashraf relocate to Camp Liberty, they will continue to face the agents, posing as PMOI family members, who have for the past two years gathered around Camp Ashraf to threaten and insult the residents, especially the women.

6. The same day, the IRGC’s news agency announced that PMOI members have to be transferred to a location on the borders between Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and that Iraqi officials were opposed to their relocation to Camp Liberty.

7. Whereas on December 21, the Iraqi Prime Minister announced the six-month extension of the deadline, Tehran’s Ambassador to Baghdad Hassan Danai-far, was quoted by the state-run news agency, ISNA, on January 1, “The Iraqi government plans to close down Camp Ashraf in the next few days.”

8. The Iraqi government did not agree to the participation of Mrs. Rajavi and representatives of Camp Ashraf or even their lawyers in discussions on the fate of their clients between the Iraqi government and Amb. Kobler. This was despite the fact that in paragraph 66 of his July 7, 2011 report to the Security Council, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, had clearly stated, “I call upon Member States to help to support and facilitate the implementation of any arrangement that is acceptable to the Government of Iraq and the camp residents.”

9. U.S. and UN officials said that Camp Liberty had been handed over to the Iraqi government on December 3rd. On December 7th, UN officials told Camp Ashraf representatives that they had visited Camp Liberty and that it had been ready with UN and UNHCR standards. It is about 40 Sq. kms and the U.S. forces have left behind the necessary and sufficient facilities and infra-structure, they said. UN officials also stated repeatedly that they would not sign any agreement with the Iraqi government on the relocation of Camp Ashraf residents to Camp Liberty before informing and getting the agreement of Camp Ashraf representatives.

10. However, on December 25, the Memorandum of Understanding was signed due to Iraqi government pressure and without the knowledge and agreement of the residents of Camp Ashraf and their representatives. The text of the MoU was provided to Camp Ashraf representatives the next day. It became clear that the Iraqi forces had occupied 95 percent of Camp Liberty’s area. Later, it was learned that the location allocated to the residents of Ashraf was not ready. On December 30th, an alternative and temporary location in Camp Liberty was offered to the residents, which was even smaller. Camp Ashraf representatives were also told that the Iraqi government had opposed the 400 residents taking their vehicles and moveable assets from Ashraf to Liberty.

11. As for the moveable assets, kitchen appliances and bread baking equipment, the residents were told the latter would be available at Liberty. However, Iraqi officials rejected the suggestion by Camp Ashraf representatives to send a 5-10 member team of Camp Ashraf residents and engineers to visit Camp Liberty for a few hours and appraise the facilities and accommodations.

12. Iraqi officials also opposed the transfer of the residents’ vehicles on the pretext that they had no registration. Amb. Kobler had been informed, however, that all the vehicles and equipment had their titles and that some 200 had been purchased in 2008 with the monitoring of the U.S. forces with their taxes paid. These cars have no license plates because of the three-year siege on Camp Ashraf and the refusal by Iraqi officials to issue them. Camp Ashraf representative proposed to Amb. Kobler that if Iraqi officials were not really using license plate issue as an excuse, they could easily resolve this problem in a matter of a few hours either in Camp Ashraf or in Liberty by sending officials from the Motor Vehicle Department to issue license plates. He also said all vehicles could be handed over to the UN as soon as they arrive and are unloaded at Liberty. This would provide time to resolve the legal issues and return the cars to their owners. The Camp Ashraf representative even suggested that if completing the one to two hour journey from Ashraf to Liberty under US and UN monitoring violates Iraqi sovereignty, Camp Ashraf residents were prepared to hire private transport companies to carry the cars on their trucks.

13. In a letter to Secretary Clinton on December 29, copied to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Amb. James Jeffrey, Amb. Daniel Fried and Amb. Martin Kobler, Mrs. Rajavi wrote, “I recall my emphatic appeal to the residents of Camp Ashraf to relocate 400 people to Camp Liberty as a goodwill gesture until subsequent Iraqi government agreement with the minimum assurances and reiterate that 400 residents are prepared to relocate to Camp Liberty with their vehicles and moveable assets on December 30th. As such, why and who is preventing an initial inspection of Camp Liberty by five or ten Camp Ashraf residents in order to assess the state and the shortages of the new camp? The obvious question the residents are asking is whether or not Liberty is going to be a prison. Otherwise, transferring the necessary equipment to Liberty in order to prepare and ease the shortages should not be to anyone’s detriment? Why is there opposition to the residents leaving Camp Ashraf with their assets and vehicles as soon as possible?  Is transferring kitchen appliances, bread baking equipment, heaters, refrigerators, air conditioners and generators threatening the sovereignty of Iraq?  UNHCR has recognized the residents of Camp Ashraf as “formally asylum- seekers under international law… that they must be able to benefit from basic protection of their security and well-being”.

14. Mrs. Rajavi appealed to Secretary Clinton for her assistance and intervention so that Amb. Kobler could convince the Iraqi government agree to the “inspection of Camp Liberty by a number of Camp Ashraf engineers; the immediate transfer of 400 Camp Ashraf residents to Liberty with their vehicles and moveable assets and the subsequent acceptance by Iraq of the minimum assurances to convince the rest of Camp Ashraf residents to go to Liberty in the remaining months now that the deadline has been extended.”

15. The representative of Camp Ashraf residents outside Iraq wrote to Mr. Kobler on December 30th: “Unfortunately, from all indications, the Iraqi government intends to turn Camp Liberty to a prison for the residents of Camp Ashraf. The prohibition against the residents taking their vehicles, imposing restrictions on taking their assets and the opposition to an initial inspection of the site by a group of Camp Ashraf engineers are sources of tremendous concern to the residents. These restrictions, which are absolutely contrary to the fundamental values and rights which the United Nations is supposed to safeguard, have nothing to do with the issue of Iraqi sovereignty. Far from it, the sovereignty right has degenerated into an excuse to further the evil intention of the religious fascism ruling Iran. When one adds to these conditions the threat of an attack if relocation without the vehicles is not accepted as well as the missile attacks against Ashraf, the source of which is quite clear, any fair-minded and reasonable person could only reach one conclusion: the Iraqi government is intent on building a prison-like environment for the residents of Ashraf. What is happening right now is forced relocation and a flagrant violation of the rights of the residents.”

16. He added, “Since you agree, I hope, that except for prisoners, no one is taken to an area without previously having inspected it and that you do not expect the residents to go to a prison on their own volition, if Iraq does not accept an initial exploratory visit to Camp Liberty by a 5-10 member team of Ashraf residents, I request that on behalf of the residents that a delegation consisting of Ashraf lawyers and representatives, including Senator Robert Torricelli, Brig. Gen. David Phillips (ret.), Mr. Paulo Casaca (former MEP) and Dr. Juan Garces (the distinguished international law jurist) go to Iraq tomorrow to visit Camp Liberty and assure the residents that no malice is intended toward them.”

17. Ms. Mojgan Parsaei, Vice President of the Iranian Resistance in Camp Ashraf, wrote to Amb. Kobler on January 1, “Ashraf residents are deeply concerned that preparations are being made to transfer them to a prison or something like that. Contrary to remarks by UNSG and yourself, this would be pushing us toward forcible and illegal relocation which is contrary to IHL and ICCPR. Ashraf residents feel they are facing unnecessary suffering, degrading and humiliating behavior. Our lawyers constantly warn us about this; they say they have sent you dozens of letters in this regard over the past two days… In a December 26 letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, copied to you as well, more than 3,000 Ashraf residents wrote, ‘You will concur with us that forcible displacement is prohibited under international law.  The current drive to relocate us is being done under constraint, against our free will, and while we do not have the minimum assurances for our safety and security’”. She added, “Considering the above-mentioned concerns, Ashraf residents find themselves facing an obscure and bleak future. I am faced with a wave of questions from Ashraf residents, their lawyers and families… Does the Iraqi government, under pressure from the Iranian regime, plan to call off the agreement? Is it trying to use Amb. Kobler as leverage to send us to prison and force us into an unlawful and unacceptable relocation contrary to international law and conventions? Is it trying to compel the SRSG to withdraw from this agreement and put the blame on us, and then attack and justify another massacre?”

18. In her letter, Ms. Parsaei had underscored “the adherence of the residents of Ashraf to Mrs. Rajavi’s December 28 letter and her December 29 letter to Secretary Clinton.”

Recalling UN Secretary General’s previous appeal to UN Member States “to support and facilitate the implementation of any arrangement that is acceptable to the Government of Iraq and the camp residents,” and in order to save the peaceful and mutually satisfactory solution, Mrs. Rajavi proposed the convening of a special session in Paris or Brussels or Geneva to be presided over by Amb. Martin Kobler, UN Secretary General’s Special Representative for Iraq; and attended by herself or Camp Ashraf representatives; authoritative Iraqi officials; Amb. Daniel Fried, Secretary Clinton’s Special Representative on Ashraf; U.S. Embassy-Baghdad Representative for Ashraf; Amb. Jean de-Ruyt, Baroness Ashton’s Special Envoy on Ashraf; UNHCR Representative; European Parliament Vice President Dr. Alejo Vidal Quadras; and Struan Stevenson, Head of EP’s Delegation for Relations with Iraq.

Secretariat of the National Council of Resistance of Iran
January 2, 2012

http://www.ncr-iran.org/en/ncri-statements/ashraf/11589-camp-ashraf-warning-on-iranian-regimes-efforts-to-undermine-a-peaceful-solution