The attack on Camp Ashraf
I wrote here about the attack at the end of July by Iraqi forces against the Iranian opposition group the People’s Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI) at Camp Ashraf in Iraq, which led to the death of 11 Ashraf residents and the injury of 500 others.
Since then, the camp has remained under siege by Iraqi forces, some 36 residents are being held hostage and Iranians are staging hunger strikes and sit-ins in cities around the world, including in Britain and America -- with some hunger-strikers now reported to be in a critical condition. This is in protest against the attack and in an attempt to regain the protection of the US which has handed over reponsibility for that protection to the Iraqis – the very people who are responsible for the attack and siege.
This affair raises not just urgent concerns about the safety of these Iranian dissidents in Iraq but also some very troubling questions about the behaviour of the US government and – most sensitive of all -- about where power in Iraq now really lies.
The PMOI, which has a past history as a Marxist terrorist organisation, renounced violence completely in 2003 and voluntarily handed all its weapons to US forces. As powerful opponents of the Iranian Islamic Revolution, it sought refuge in Saddam’s Iraq where it established its base at Camp Ashraf. Although Britain and Europe have now deemed the PMOI to be no longer a terrorist organisation, the American government has not taken it off its terrorism register. Nevertheless, in view of the assistance it provided to American forces the US agreed to guarantee its members’ safety. This year, however, the U.S. military handed over control of the camp to the Iraqis as part of the security agreement reached in December between Washington and Baghdad, a decision which the camp’s residents and supporters protested at the time exposed them to danger.
These concerns were to be fully realised. The Iraqi government signed a bilateral agreement with Iran to expel the PMOI from Iraq. Last February, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, demanded that Iraq implement that agreement. Subsequently, Iraqi forces placed restrictions on people visiting Ashraf. After the Iranian popular uprising following Iran’s rigged election, Iran asked the Iraqi government to close down Camp Ashraf, since the PMOI was heavily involved in that attempt to resist the regime. The result was the Iraqi attack and subsequent siege. According to the PMOI, those abducted from Camp Ashraf by the Iraqi forces were beaten and tortured; the fear is that they will be transferred to Iran and murdered.
The implications of this are of course enormous. According to the US, Iraq is free and independent. Yet what the Ashraf attack shows is that Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is dancing to the tune of Iran, the mortal enemy of America and the west and which has been behind so much of the violence in Iraq. The PMOI says that the attack on Ashraf was carried out in accordance with the personal orders of al-Maliki, with the attackers comprising the police, the army, and the Prime Minister’s own special guards. A large number of them, it says, were also agents of the Iranian Quds Force and 9th Badr brigade, and spoke in Farsi -- forces which are still stationed in the area and which it is feared may resume attacks at any time.
According to the PMOI, the American forces were present on the scene when the July attack began and saw everything. Ashraf officials repeatedly asked US forces for help in stopping the attack but they simply stood aside. Their line has been that since they passed responsibility for Ashraf security to the Iraqis it was no longer their concern. But the US continues to have not only a moral but a legal responsibility towards the beleaguered residents of Ashraf. As a number of legal experts, including the UK’s Law Society, have pointed out, the US has a continuing duty to protect Ashraf's residents under the terms of the Geneva Conventions which afford them ‘protected status’.
It would seem that the US doesn’t want to know about Ashraf because it doesn’t want to face the fact that a) something has clearly gone badly wrong with Iraq if it has turned the responsibility the US gave it to guard Ashraf into an attack upon Ashraf and b) that the something that has gone badly wrong is that Iran has Iraq under its thumb.
Which rather gives the lie to everything the US is telling us about the optimistic situation that now prevails in Iraq, doesn’t it – not to mention the implications for the regional balance of power and the defence of the west against Iran.
Update: A PMOI supporter has contacted me to make the following point about the organisation's past history:
Their ideology has always been a tolerant democratic interpretation of Islam, which is 180 degrees opposite to that of the fundamentalist mullahs ruling Iran. Unlike Marxists who are 'non believers', they are believers. The Marxist label was initially made against them by the Shah’s regime SAVAK (the notorious secret police) in the 70’s, and this was followed by the mullahs to tarnish their image since millions from the educated sector of the Iranian society were eager to join them and were supporting them.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (23)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
1 Yes campaign launch will cause problems — for the independence movement - Ysenda Maxtone Graham
2 Obama vs Balls - edited by Graham Storey, Margaret Brown and Kathle
3 Cameron's attack on Balls is strangely endearing - Lloyd Evans
4 Susie Squire to take over as Tory press chief - James Forsyth
5 What Farage's offer means for David Cameron - James Forsyth
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power', published by Encounter.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
THE PRESENT FINDER
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
RUFFS Bespoke Signet rings
62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Jason from AZ
September 8th, 2009 3:25amAs reported in the Washington Post several weeks ago, a former Iraqi intelligence even said that within 5 years Iraq will essentially become a puppet state of Iran, just like Syria. And for this, US and UK have expended thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
When will the West learn that it can never win the "hearts and minds" of an Islamic nation.
Tommy
September 8th, 2009 8:52amNever forget Sharia law is Sharia law -- and there is only one version
Matt P.
September 8th, 2009 9:01amAs an international law student, I know for a fact that the "protected persons" status of those covered under the 4th Geneva Convention runs for an extra year after the end of a combat situation. Thus, if the Multi-National Force's presence in Iraq legally ended on 31 December 2008, these people in Ashraf would still have to be protected until the end of 2009.
I believe the 4th Geneva Convention also has an article that deals with cases where a handover of protection goes wrong, as in the present case. Article 45 says in such cases the country which handed over protection must either request it back or must take steps to prevent a violation of the "protected persons" rights. It seems from what you are describing that the US is doing neither and therefore breaching its responsibilities under international law.
GaryO
September 8th, 2009 9:38amShould we be supporting anything with "Mujahideen" in its title?
This is the prime example of the West's myopia. PMOI was and is an Islamic socialist organization that advocates against capitalism and "Western Imperialism".
In other words it is Tariq Ramadan incarnate.
Our short term desire to make Mr Ahmadinejad's life a little bit uncomfortable is making us sleep with strange bedfellows who, the history has shown us in that region, could and would turn against us just as quickly.
PMOI's goals of an overthrow of the Iranian regime happily coincide with ours. But that’s as far as it goes. We shouldn't support them in any shape or form, despite what they say they are now.
Have we learnt nothing?
ISAAC
September 8th, 2009 10:01amWelcokme back to Melanie Phillips. you must write now once again in defence of our so called "settlements" - the homes for our People - on the land infested by the squatters. We fight hard to make these buildings and now you must explain why.
ISAAC
September 8th, 2009 10:01amWelcokme back to Melanie Phillips. you must write now once again in defence of our so called "settlements" - the homes for our People - on the land infested by the squatters. We fight hard to make these buildings and now you must explain why.
hanif
September 8th, 2009 10:36amThanks for bringing to attention the plight of the Iranian people and the Ashraf residents. It is good to see journalists holding governments to account
Sud
September 8th, 2009 10:52amGaryO No one wants your support for PMOI. Just stop doing Ahmadinejad's dirty work against PMOI for him, that is all Melanie is saying. Also it is not right to brand all Moslems as bad. This is playing in the hand of the tyrants in Iran and their proxies in Iraq. The PMOI's democratic ideals and practice has won support amongst a wide spectrum of distinguished lawyers and lawmakers around the globe. They are not novices fooled by rhetoric. So please study your lesson and make informed comments from now on. Thank you.
Masoud
September 8th, 2009 11:33amThank you Melanie for covering this very bizarre “humanitarian scandal” as Lord Carlile put it. There should be more attention focused on this. The PMOI is the bulwark against expansion of Islamic fundamentalism in the region. We should strengthen it not weaken. It was foolish to give responsibility of Ashraf’s security to Iranian proxies in Iraq in the first place, especially after so much warning from parliamentarians from all over the world including Iraq herself. But it is astonishing that after 42 says still we have not heard a word of condemnation of the attack by British and American officials who are responsible for putting in place conditions that led to Al Maleki, mullahs’ puppet, get in control position in Iraq. This is a disgrace and we must do everything to correct it before it is too late and Iranian regime gobbles up Iraq in the road to “Fatehe Quds az tarighe Karbala” i.e. conquer Jerusalem through Iraq which was Khomeini’s motto during Iran-Iraq war.
There is another point that I wanted to tell you Melanie. Your nice article has been tarnished by giving credit to an old label used by the Shah to discredit the PMOI in 1970’s. PMOI had never “a history of Marxist terrorist organisation”. It was accused of such. The British courts decided that the label was “perverse”. So please don’t use it again. They were neither Marxist nor terrorist. They were freedom loving Iranians who resorted to armed resistance as the last resort against tyrannical regime of the Ayatollahs who brutalise their people in such a manner that you have recently just seen the tip of the ice berg in the media.
Steve
September 8th, 2009 12:08pmAs Gary O said PMOI's our goals of an overthrow of the Iranian regime happily coincide with ours, but let us concentrate on this so long as this fundamentalism regime is in power. Who ever comes in power would distance it self from atomic boom and the idea of absolute rule of cleric and is not aggressive to its neighbours, would be better therefore we should support those who are standing up against this regime.
Jalal
September 8th, 2009 12:10pmI am appalled by one of the comments that suggested we should not support the group because they are Islamists and worst than the current regime. The question is not supporting or not supporting a group, it is about massacre of unarmed people confined in a camp who do not have anywhere to go.
You can not kill men and women because they are Muslim and because IF Iran is free and IF they gain support and If they come to power in future Iran, they might be worst than Ahmadinejad!
American with 150 thousands well equipped troops in Iraq have legal and moral (if there is any) obligation to provide protection for PMOI members in Ashraf whose rights have been guaranteed by the 4th Geneva Conventions.
Arash
September 8th, 2009 12:15pmWell done Melanie
This was a great piece you presented.
I pass every day from US embassy and when I see 12 people are suffering of hunger strike and their massage is not covering in the media I wonder where freedom of press and human values are!
Arash
simon
September 8th, 2009 12:22pmThank you Melanie
I wish other media were also concern about the issue of camp Ashraf.
I am not particularly a supporter but when I saw the violent attack on the camp in YouTube I was a shame that we call our self democrat and we are proud of the democracy we enjoy but yet such issue has been ignored. I wonder why? Perhaps oil?!
Simon
James C
September 8th, 2009 12:23pmoh well here we go again. More tyranny, more lies, business as usual.
Dr Hoda Hosseini
September 8th, 2009 12:29pmI'm glad that Matt P has pointed out succinctly that "the US is... breaching its responsibilities under international law."
Articles 45, 146 and 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention make it clear that the US has a legal responsibility for the safety of Camp Ashraf.
The following two links show footage of the brutal attacks on the Camp
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CJxMaN4C4A&eurl=
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwGyyYVzlAw&eurl=
It is unbelievable how the West and the US in particular have ignored this massacre and how they continue to ignore their obligations under international law. US forces filmed the attacks, and were approached directly for help as people were being shot and run over by Humvees. However, they walked away, in to their jeeps, rolled up their windows and drove away.
Obama promised change and a better world. If he continues to ignore international law and the situation in Ashraf, he will have a lot to answer for.
Thanks for following up the story Melanie.
Margaret Muller-Johansson
September 8th, 2009 3:02pmWhat does Barack Hussein Mohammad Obama Ahmedbadjob think about this?
R Whitehand
September 8th, 2009 4:06pmWelcome back Melanie. Good post. Shame about the comment saying this group are socialist. They are not, and neither do they deserve being shot.
I have written to my MP to ask that he lobby the UK Government to make clear their views on this matter.
steve
September 8th, 2009 4:22pmMelanie: Does it trouble you at all that this group you support was once fully supported by Saddam Hussein? Also, it is hardly surprising that the Iraqi government is now dominated by Iran. This was a logical outcome of the invasion of Iraq and the shift from a country dominated by Sunnis to one dominated by Shias. The toppling of Saddam, which you supported, was a huge victory for Iran so it would be nice to see some reflection by you on this.
GaryO
September 8th, 2009 4:48pm@ Sud (September 8th, 2009 10:52am)
Any organisation with democratic ideals would not call themselves "mujahideen".
Definition of a mujaheed: Person who wages jihad (holy islamic war).
I don't know about you, but that does not sound very democratic or peaceful to me!
We in the West have got our fingers badly burned by supporting one type of mujahideens (holy warriors) and are still paying a very heavy price for it, in economic terms and body count.
In other words we support PMOI at our own peril and would do well to steer clear.
YA
September 8th, 2009 7:01pmSorry Melanie but talking seriously about Iraqi party that abandons self-defence, now? How on Earth it might be viable? popular? Or, are they all psychiatric patients or what? You report is just not credibe.
West should only suport a single type of political party, a single over the world - including "Islamic world". A secular humanist movement.
People should have right to decide - or to remain Muslims or to become something better.
This is basic human right, that West should promote and help to defend.
GaryO you're correct everything with root "jihad" mut be scrapped ASAP. If "jihad" is meant acceptable even in the most innocent democratic interpretation, it will be immediately opposed by cloning in a more malignant form, and as a result fiercest will survive, and we will have world stuffed by these cannibals.
John Edwards
September 8th, 2009 7:50pmexcellent comment by steve
Abbas
September 8th, 2009 11:14pmvery nice article.
I was glad to read about this and get to know journalists support the Iranian people and not the Iranian regime.
Long live the PMOI who fight for a free Iran.
Winston
September 21st, 2009 7:12amNo one cares about the MEK terrorists. Really, No one does. And I don't shed a single tear for anti-Iranian traitors like MEK. They should have been tried along Saddam.