Firouz Mahvi

GET UPDATES FROM Firouz Mahvi
 

UN Relenting to Bullying by Iraq on Camp Ashraf

Posted: 09/01/12 15:21

For many who during last year followed the developments of Camp Ashraf in Iraq, home to 3400 Iranian dissidents, the 31 December 2011 was deemed a horrific date.

On that day, Iraq had imposed an "irreversible" deadline to close the Camp, situated 60 miles north east of Baghdad, and force the residents out. A worldwide campaign turned Ashraf into a top priority with international dimensions. Both EU and US assigned special envoys to deal with the specific issue of Ashraf. It was twice brought before the UN Security Council and finally Iraq had to give in to the pressure. On December 21, the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki announced a six-month extension of the deadline to close down Ashraf.

So the much feared year's end attack on Camp Ashraf, planned by the mullahs in Tehran long in advance, was foiled.

There were two reasons for that: 1) The international campaign in Europe and USA which made policy makers aware of the dire situation in Ashraf. b) The skilful handling of Iranian Resistance's leader Maryam Rajavi, whom while persisting on Ashraf's obvious rights, convinced the residents to show ultimate flexibility and forego their rights in favour of a peaceful solution.

Despite this great achievement, the situation of Ashraf residents remains uncertain as many issues remain unresolved and they must be dealt with quickly to avoid another tragedy.

On December 25 UN Secretary General's Special Envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Iraq. The MoU suffered from essential shortcomings. The security of the residents was "exclusively" abandoned to the very same Iraqi forces that in July 2009 and April 2011 had attacked and killed 47 of them and wounded more than a thousand.

In his meetings in Ashraf and in Europe with the residents' representatives, Ambassador Kobler had promised that he will not sign anything without their approval. Indeed the UN Secretary General had previously specifically stressed the need for a mutually acceptable solution. In his report to the Security Council on 7 July 2011, Ban Ki Moon urged Member States "to support and facilitate the implementation of any arrangement that is acceptable to the Government of Iraq and the camp residents."

So Ashraf residents were quite shocked being informed via the press that the MoU was signed without their knowledge or agreement. That was a serious blow to Ashraf residents' confidence and trust in the UN.

To help advance the international peaceful plan, Mrs Rajavi on December 28 issued a statement that 400 Ashraf residents were ready to relocate with their vehicles and moveable belongings to a former US camp near Baghdad, "Camp Liberty", to be interviewed by the UNHCR on their refugee status in order to be able to resettle in third countries.

It has now become clear that the area allocated to Ashraf residents is less than one square km of the 40 sq km area of Camp Liberty that the US left to the Iraqis. Some 150 Iraqi policemen would be permanently present inside the camp. The area is comprised of a collection of dilapidated trailers. Following the departure of the U.S. forces most of the equipment, facilities and amenities have been looted. Electricity, water and sewage systems are dysfunctional and the Camp's only dining hall is a long distance away from the trailers. Those who are sick, physically impaired, and the elderly cannot use it. Newly installed concrete walls, three to four meters tall, will encircle the area.

Iraqi government has opposed the residents taking their vehicles and moveable belongings from Ashraf to Liberty. The officials also reject the idea of sending a group of 5-10 engineers from Ashraf in advance to visit Camp Liberty to appraise the facilities and accommodations.

Taking vehicles and assets with you to your new home and visiting it in advance could hardly endanger a country's sovereignty. Far from it, the sovereignty right here has degenerated into an excuse to further the evil intention of the religious regime in power in Iran.

What is happening right now is forced relocation and a flagrant violation of the rights of the residents.

Although UNHCR has recognized the residents of Ashraf as "asylum-seekers" under international law who must be able to "benefit from basic protection of their security and well-being", the process of verification and interviews with the residents of Ashraf and the reconfirmation of their refugee status has not yet begun. The Iraqi Government incomprehensible bullying, to which UNAMI relented, deferred the UNHCR process to the relocation of the residents to another site. As a result, the refugee determination process is in limbo.

The role played so far by the USA and the EU has been quite disappointing. The EU in general has so far not even accepted people in Ashraf who used to be EU residents - around 900 people who do not need to go through the full process of UNHCR - or those who are critically ill. Baroness Ashton just issues statements in support of the UN representative in Iraq (not a clever way to put pressure on Ashraf residents) without using her influence on Iraq to stop imposing restrictions and exerting pressure on the residents. The EU has been so lean with Baghdad that its envoy for Ashraf was not granted visa to visit Iraq last month!

USA could have exerted pressure on Iraq to stop it from hurdling the resettlement plan. The USA could have removed the PMOI/MEK from its blacklist as competent courts have seen no evidence to support that designation. Such a move would have had enormous positive political implications and would have opened the way for the resettlement of Ashraf residents in third countries.

The USA, EU and UN are de facto endorsing Iraq's unlawful conditions by exerting pressure on the people in Ashraf to accept the terms dictated by Maliki. The real concern of the residents is neither their cars, nor other facilities at that camp; the real concern is that all indications point to turning Camp Liberty into a prison.

"Ambassador Kobler is acting more Catholic than the Pope as he seems keener than the Government (Iraq) to evacuate Ashraf," an Iraqi friend told me last week.

 
For many who during last year followed the developments of Camp Ashraf in Iraq, home to 3400 Iranian dissidents, the 31 December 2011 was deemed a horrific date. On that day, Iraq had imposed an "irr...
For many who during last year followed the developments of Camp Ashraf in Iraq, home to 3400 Iranian dissidents, the 31 December 2011 was deemed a horrific date. On that day, Iraq had imposed an "irr...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
00:33 on 11/01/2012
Patrick Kennedy, Member of US House of Representatives (1995-2011) said in Paris on 6 January 2011: “Let’s understand what this terrorist listing means. For all of you, you know what it means. It’s an execution order for your family members. But it is also a mortal threat to the national security of the United States of America. After 9/11, no American can stand by while we honor false and hypocritical and political lists like this. We cannot afford, as the United States, to play games, to play political games with national security. So I say to the State Department, I say to my colleagues in Congress, former colleagues in Congress, understand this: if you care about the security of the United States, which you’re sworn to uphold, then take this sham of a list and tear it up”.
Protection of Ashraf is not only a humanitarian duty it is a political wisdom too.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:04 on 11/01/2012
Oh and Masoudd, here is the link to the UNHCR document that requires individual-confirmation of Camp Ashraf residents to be deemed refugee status:
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendocPDFViewer.html?docid=4e7064e26&query=ashraf
03:24 on 12/01/2012
What does this comment even mean. Of course each resident has to formally ask to be registered for refugee status at that point they will be formally registered as asylum seekers. All the residents have done this. It is a simple case of sending a letter with a signature on it. What point are you trying to make here.

This comment seems to be about the administrative protocol UNHCR very odd comment to make.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
20:00 on 10/01/2012
Clinton won't touch this until the election is over.
All bodies are afraid of how it will reflect on them if: when the MEK are transfered and their subsequent actions end up on newspaper-headlines.
Asylum status was lost when MEK became combatants against their own state.
I'll stop there since my comments keep getting blocked for some reason.
03:19 on 12/01/2012
The answer to your question can very simply be answered the UNHCR in September officialy designated that each and every resident in Camp Ashraf was classified as an assylum seeker. This nonsense that you are writing about events that preceed September of this year are quite simply irrelvant and factualy incorrect. Some aspects people are willing to debate. Statements such as this can be found to be incorrect in under a minute by looking at UNHCR statement in relation to Camp Ashraf. You are way way off the mark. Completely wrong on this point. No where near truth.
03:28 on 12/01/2012
Your first comment had a link to the UNHCR statement which said that the residents would be registered as asylum seekers as long as they declared that they wanted this to happen which meant sending a signed letter.
Your next statement mentions something about aslyum status being lost because they want to replace the fascist regime in Iran. You are contradicting your self. The link you sent shows that as of Sep last year these people were classified as asylum seekers which ivalidates your second point.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
19:44 on 10/01/2012
John Bolton's advocacy for the PMOI/MEK indicates why the US/EU/UN balk at coming to the rescue: each party knows the PMOI/MEK's intentions and no one wants to be associated with their means.
The status of "asylum-seekers" was nullified when PMOI/MEK became combatants joining Sadam in his war against Iran.
Clinton's hands are tied due to the election and now with Hektami, who knows what the Obama administration will be forced to sacrifice.
08:43 on 11/01/2012
Wrong fact again. The status of "asylum-seekers" was given by UNHCR on 13 September 2011, nearly 5 years after Saddam was executed. Please stop misinforming people.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:01 on 11/01/2012
Sorry Masoudd, you are wrong. See UNHCR document from 11 September titled, "New Camp Iraq (formerly Camp Ashraf) residents and determination of their refugee status claims" and paragraph 6: “UNHCR does not consider the conferral of refugee status on a prima facie or group basis upon the entire population of the Camp to be appropriate. It would be inconsistent with current guidelines, doctrine and practice. UNHCR guidelines require individual status determination in situations involving members of the associations or groups that have any history of armed activities.”
03:34 on 12/01/2012
Once again you mention the status of asylum being lost becuase of some bogus accusation that your friends in the Fascist regime came up with. Even though you have sent a link that clearly shows as of September last year these civilians were officialy classified as asylum seekers.

Thankyou for the link which invalidates your own points. I suggest you delete that link as it is proving your points in relation to asylum being total nonsense.
17:52 on 10/01/2012
What a thorough article. I totally agree with the writter.
17:09 on 10/01/2012
US promised protection of Camp Ashraf residents, What happened to that promise? and written agreement?
16:06 on 10/01/2012
It is amazing how all the MEK operative call themselves human rights activists.
17:03 on 10/01/2012
At least they have a real name and a face unlike the mullah's agents who rarely dare to display more than a fake name.
03:39 on 12/01/2012
They are fighting against a government which has executed over 120,000 political prisoners since the early 1980's and is responsible for the most ferocious use of torture only comparible to three other administration in history Stalin, The Nazi's and Maos reign in China.

They are fighting for equality between men and women, they fight for religious freedom in Iran, they fight for the rights if ethnic minorities in Iran. Read their manifesto and you will clearly see that these people are fighters for human rights to their very core and always will be.

The regime in Iran is the opposite it tortures murders abuses women and is the absoloute antithesis to valuing human rights.
15:42 on 10/01/2012
Right, EU seem to have lost all its influence here. Their priority seem to be keeping Iraq happy. What happende to EU's economic weight which could be combined with the language of firmness on protecting the rights of refugees? There should be consequenses for Iraq if it does not issue visa to Baroness Ashton's evnoy for a humanitarian mission.
15:31 on 10/01/2012
Excellent. UN is betraying these people and Obama is doing nothing. Ashraf should be supported by all democrats.
03:42 on 12/01/2012
Thankyou for your comment the supporters of the MEK have been fighting for democracy for many years. One day Iran will have a legislature which values women equal to men, ethnic minorities as equals, and all people will be able to practice their religions in piece.

One day people will learn the true meaning of Islam not this sham that the government in Iran portrays.