At first glance, the massacre of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica almost two decades ago has little in common with the plight of some 3,500 dissident Iranians at a place called Camp Ashraf in Iraq.
But a closer look shows the opposite.
In 1995, Dutch forces serving as UN peacekeepers to monitor the situation during the siege of Srebrenica did nothing to protect Muslim civilians, who were turned over to the Serb military and slaughtered.
In 2003, residents of Ashraf surrendered their weapons to U.S.-led Coalition forces and, after a 16-month investigation, the U.S. government recognised each one of them as a Protected Person under the Fourth Geneva Convention and issued every resident an ID card and a "Protected Person under Fourth Geneva Convention" card.
Now, eight years later, Iraqi forces - at the instigation of their masters in Iran - have besieged Ashraf. In assaults carried out in July 2009 and last April, 47 of these "protected persons" were killed and 1071 injured. So, just as the Dutch failed in Bosnia, so has the U.S. in Ashraf.
So what?
Until recently, that might have been the answer: But then, a surprise legal event took place. On July 5, the Dutch court of appeals held the country's government accountable for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. The court said that the Dutch forces failed to protect the lives of civilian Muslims, and the judges ordered the Dutch government to pay retributions to families of the victims. The court rejected the argument offered by the government that its soldiers were acting under the command of the United Nations thus removing their responsibility for the situation.
Sounds a lot like Ashraf, doesn't it?
Indeed, as the President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, said the U.S. inaction is far more serious. The U.S. individually questioned every resident of Ashraf, took all their weapons, even what might be needed for self-defence, ruled that they posed no threat of terrorism, and assumed full responsibility to provide protection until their final disposition.
Nothing that has happened since relieves the United States of this responsibility. Yet, the U.S. has refused to interfere in the situation, a decision far more unacceptable than the inaction of Dutch forces during the Srebrenica tragedy. There is no doubt that the United States, by virtue of the responsibility it accepted to protect the lives of Ashraf residents, should be leading an investigation into the Iraqi actions and demanding answers for the killings and injuries committed at Ashraf.
Rather, it has turned a blind eye to the situation.
The irony is that in every area except Ashraf and the People's Mujahadin of Iran (PMOI), whose members have lived there for 25 years, the U.S. has assailed the mullahs in Tehran and their activities in Iraq. Recently, it blamed the increase in U.S. casualties in Iraq on weapons sent there by Iran. It also has decried Iran's export of terrorism.
Yet, it has sat on the sidelines as the Maliki government in Baghdad cosies up to the mullahs. And it has done nothing to remove the PMOI from its place on the list of terrorist organisations, a designation that goes back to the days when the State Department thought they could get closer to "moderates" in Tehran through appeasement. The mullahs are still laughing at the success of that ploy, as it advanced their programme of nuclear weapons development.
Now, it's "put-up-or-shut-up" time for the Obama administration.
Most urgently, it must act to protect those 3,500 at-risk residents of Ashraf, whose plight is getting more desperate every day as another military assault it prepared. They don't want reparations for their families following their slaughter; they want a safe haven, outside of Iraq.
It must also remove the terrorism label from the PMOI so it can continue to lead the struggle for a free and democratic Iran. That's all the Iranian opposition wants - no troops, no funds, just to have the unjustified "terror" tag removed. It is this that Iran and Iraq use to justify the killings of Ashraf residents.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale is Chairman of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom. He is a former Chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee.
This is a very strange accusation. As, the US is currently training, funding, and arming the Iraqi Army.
"Beyond the various courses and programs being held in-country, both American staff colleges and military academies have begun taking Iraqi applicants, with Iraqi cadets being enrolled at both the United States Military Academy and the US Air Force Academy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Army
In fact, the US is getting ready to sell the Iraqi National Army 36 F-16 fighter jets.
"WASHINGTON - Iraq has renewed talks to buy up to 36 U.S. F-16 fighter jets in a deal worth billions that Washington hopes will help contain neighboring Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported July 11."
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7074667&c=AIR&s=TOP
1- Regardless of all the lies leveled against PMOI's past and present, even if there were Al-Qaida terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, they should not have been treated the way they have been in Iraq in the past two years and especially the savage attack on 8 April 2011 with armored vehicles and machine guns is not justifiable by any means. Where are the American left to raise their voice as the have been over Abu Quraib and Guantanamo?
2- The PMOI and the National Liberation Army of Iran have never had any military operation outside of Iran and even have officially stopped all military operations in Iran since 2001. The French judges recently concluded that all PMOI and NLA's operations in the past too fall within the definition of "resistance against tyranny". While the west is supporting a newly born Liberation Army in Libya, why is there so much fuss about leaving the Liberation Army of Iran alone instead of suppressing it by an illegal and unjust label?
"It must also remove the terrorism label from the PMOI so it can continue to lead the struggle for a free and democratic Iran. That's all the Iranian opposition wants"
You think PMOI (MEK) struggle for a free and democratic Iran? Which part of this organization is free? Electing the head of organization which was someone and has been changed to his wife?
Look at articles about "MEK's Human Rights record". How they can lead to freedom while they are a cult group?
You think Iranian ever forget that MEK betrayed them by helping Saddam during war on Iran and to be the leader of Iranian?!!
Who are these Iranian opposition you're talking about? MEK or NCRI (which is the same thing and is just front organization)
What do you know about Iranian Green Movement? You think people who took to street are supporters of which one of Iranian opposition you talking about?
Some might say if they don't have supporters in Iran why government want to remove them.The answer is every government in world fight with armed group!
Don't get me wrong.I'm not talking about people ,I'm talking about an organization.
By the way about freedom in this group look at these
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/13/magazine/13MUJAHADEEN.html
Also BBC report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIwCOdHQgfc
I have a simple question :
How you justify MEK helped Saddam during the war against Iran? (You're not gonna deny it.Are you?)
The U.S. forces disarmed Ashraf residents and took away all their weapons, including those needed for self-defense. Therefore, this increases the responsibility of the U.S. forces towards Ashraf residents.
Moreover, the U.S. forces signed an agreement with each and every resident of Ashraf promising to protect them until their final disposition. In contrast to the situation in Srebrenica, Ashraf residents are not only considered Protected Persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention by the ICRC and the United States as a group, but every single one of them was interviewed by various U.S. agencies, and after a sixteen-month investigation, the U.S. government recognized each one of them as a Protected Person under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and issued an ID card and a “Protected Person under Fourth Geneva Convention” card for the residents. The 47 residents of Ashraf who were killed during the assaults of Iraqi forces in 2009 and April 2011 and the 1071 who have been injured since 20 February 2009, all have legal statuses, Protected Persons' ID cards, and have signed agreements with U.S. forces.
So US must resume the protection of the Camp until a final solution is reached. If not they will be held responsible for any crime perpetrated by the current iraqi governement.
I must also thank you for revealing your identity as an Iranian regime advocate by referring to terrorist Quds Force, responsible for all the atrocities in the Middle East since the inception of the Force, as a savior. I am thankful because these days a lot of regime advocates cover themselves under a 'Green' vail.
U.S administration must act to protect those 3,500 at-risk residents of Ashraf, whose plight is getting more desperate every day as another military assault it prepared. They don't want reparations for their families following their slaughter; they want a safe haven, outside of Iraq.
It must also remove the terrorism label from the PMOI so it can continue to lead the struggle for a free and democratic Iran. That's all the Iranian opposition wants - no troops, no funds, just to have the unjustified "terror" tag removed. It is this that Iran and Iraq use to justify the killings of Ashraf residents.