| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 Mar 2009 : Column 85WH—continued
Questions were asked on this matter on 2 March in the other place. Speaking for the Government, Lord Malloch-Brown did not give a view on whether Camp Ashraf should be closed and what should happen to the individuals there. Indeed, he seemed to say that he was satisfied that the Iraqi authorities were making sufficient efforts to protect those people. In light of the chilling remarks of the Iraqi security adviser, how on earth can the Government have the confidence to make such statements? I hope that the Minister will clearly outline what steps the Government are taking and what concrete
steps they will take to ensure that “protected person” status under the Geneva convention has meaning for the 3,500 people in Ashraf.
10.27 am
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on securing this debate. He has long developed a reputation in the House as a doughty champion of neglected causes, of which this is one. I pay tribute to his tenacity in demanding answers from whichever Ministers of whichever party have happened to be in office at the time.
The first thing that we need to do this morning is to work out the respective responsibilities of the British, American and Iraqi Governments. Crucially, are the inhabitants of Camp Ashraf protected persons under the fourth Geneva convention? My reading of the convention—I am no lawyer—is that they are protected persons and that they fall within the categories described therein. If so, they are entitled to humane treatment for as long as they live there. Without breaching the convention, they may not be transferred to another country under any circumstances if they have reason to fear persecution on account of their political opinions or their religious beliefs.
I should be grateful if the Minister were to say what is the Government’s legal opinion of the status of the residents of Camp Ashraf? Are they protected persons under the Geneva convention? What has the Government’s legal advice been on which country, or countries, now have legal responsibility for ensuring that the convention’s provisions are properly observed? In the case of occupied territories, the convention provides that the responsibility should remain with the occupying power, or powers, for a year after the general close of military operations, and partially, thereafter, if the occupying power continues to exercise the functions of government.
I confess to no legal expertise, but that language suggests that the prime responsibility now lies with the Iraqi Government, following the transfer of sovereignty and the successful negotiation of status of forces agreements between the various coalition powers and the elected Government in Baghdad. The Iraqi Government, therefore, should be primarily responsible for ensuring that they comply with humanitarian law. Arguably, however, some enduring, residual United States legal responsibility remains, but I should have thought—but again I would welcome the Government’s expert analysis—that the United Kingdom has more of a moral, than a legal, responsibility. What is happening at Ashraf, and what options are available to us and the other countries involved? My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) spoke about the threatening language used by at least one spokesman for the Iraqi Government and about restrictions on normal supplies to those living in Ashraf.
It is very important that we focus this debate on Iraq’s and other Governments’ humanitarian and legal obligations, rather than be distracted by what we think about the PMOI and the political situation in Iran. I am happy to concur with all the hon. Members who have spoken in this debate about the Iranian regime’s barbaric human rights record. Members have had the opportunity to make those criticisms in many other debates, but if
we are to understand why some senior members of the elected Iraqi Government are hostile towards the PMOI, we need to remind ourselves that the latter previously allied itself with Saddam Hussein, fought alongside his forces in the Iran-Iraq war and accepted guns, artillery and armoured vehicles from the Ba’athist regime. Those weapons were put out of use only when the United States’ forces reached Ashraf, after the intervention in 2003.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South quoted President Talabani, who was very critical of the PMOI. The Kurds say that the PMOI assisted the Saddam Hussein regime in its repression of the Kurdish people of northern Iraq, especially immediately after the 1990 Gulf war. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) alluded to this point. We must take seriously some of the criticisms made of how the PMOI has treated some of its own members. We need not only go the Library to find that out. Human Rights Watch, which we tend to treat with great respect when it speaks about international human rights issues, has published some very severe criticisms of the PMOI.
Andrew Mackinlay: I listened to what the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said about the Library note—I shall take a look at it—but now the hon. Gentleman has mentioned it, too. The accusation that people cannot leave Ashraf is a canard—I use that word against not them but the Iranian regime. In the past eight weeks, the International Committee of the Red Cross went to Ashraf and investigated the claim, but found only evidence proving that people can, and do, leave. Lord Avebury, Lord Corbett and I challenged Human Rights Watch to come up with the evidence, but it ignored our individual letters. It has been acutely embarrassed by its repetition of this accusation and has never shown any evidence to prove the Iranian regime’s accusation that people cannot leave Ashraf.
Mr. Lidington: I listen with respect to the hon. Gentleman. It has been some months since I read the published criticism from Human Rights Watch, but my memory is that, shortly after it published it, it was subjected to published criticisms from various quarters and that it then responded and stood by its original allegations. However, it would be wrong to go too far into the details of that debate.
What can be done now? We must acknowledge that about 200 or 300 people—estimates vary—have returned to Iran under the auspices of the ICRC. I think that Lord Malloch-Brown said in the Lords that the British Government had no evidence that those people had been mistreated. Some members of the PMOI—I think that the Government said that they would tend to be fairly low-level members—might be able to return to Iran. As far as the others are concerned, the British Government should be saying that the Iraqi and United States Administrations should accept, and discharge fully, their obligations under international law.
I hope that the Minister can confirm that our Government continue to make direct and active representations to the Iraqi and US Governments on this human rights obligation. Above all, we must stand by Amnesty International’s recommendation that, before
a final decision to remove someone from Ashraf, an independent, individual assessment should be made of the risk of serious violations of that individual’s human rights and that, under no circumstances, should somebody be removed to another country if they have reason to fear that their human rights will be abused.
10.38 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Bill Rammell): I am pleased to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), whom I congratulate on securing this debate. He and a number of his colleagues have pursued this issue with passion and conviction, and I genuinely congratulate them on doing so. I am aware that several hon. Members and noble Lords have expressed considerable, regular and diligent interest in Camp Ashraf and its residents. On at least two occasions over the past six months I have met delegations of Members to discuss the matter and to listen to their concerns.
In considering the situation in Camp Ashraf, we should not forget the considerable progress that Iraq has made as a result of the improving security situation, to which my hon. Friend referred. It has transformed the situation out of all recognition from that which existed even 15 to 18 months ago, and national reconciliation is today a far brighter prospect than it has been for a number of years. I gave media interviews on the day of the recent local elections in Iraq, and I telephoned our ambassador, who described to me the feelings and emotions on the streets of Baghdad, Basra and elsewhere. He spoke of the almost festive atmosphere in the country as Iraqis rightly went about asserting their democratic rights.
I visited Iraq last year, and it struck me that the country was slowly, but evidently, getting back on its feet. I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate Prime Minister al-Maliki and the people of Iraq on their progress towards achieving a more stable country in which people go about their daily lives in safety.
The Iraqi-led Operation Charge of the Knights in Basra in March 2008 did a great deal to improve the security situation. In downtown Basra, where people were once terrified to leave their homes for fear of being attacked or caught up in an explosion, the streets are bustling once more, with children on their way to and from school and local Basrawis back at work. That trend is positive and the Iraqi Government firmly believe that all Iraqis deserve to live free from the threat of violence or intimidation.
As a result of improvements to security, coalition troops have handed back responsibility for security to the Iraqis. That is an important point that underlies this debate. We have fully supported that process because we have increasing confidence in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to maintain that security, while respecting the rights of the people.
The Government of Iraq have signalled their commitment to developing both the culture and the institutions required to embed within Government, the security agencies and society as a whole a fundamental respect for human rights. This debate has provided an opportunity for hon. Members to express their concerns, and for me to clarify the Government’s understanding of the complex legal position of the residents of Camp Ashraf.
Before I address those points directly, let me say that I very much share hon. Members’ concerns about the situation facing the ordinary people of Iran. There is a palpable lack of democracy there. On the nuclear issue, there is a complete unwillingness to respond to the legitimate concerns of the international community and to deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency. There is a lack of respect for human rights, whether it be for Christians or Baha’is. Iran is one of the largest users of the death penalty anywhere in the world. Of particular concern is the continued execution of minors under the age of 18 despite a recent Iraqi ruling that such a practice should not take place. I find it staggering that a draft mandatory death penalty for the so-called crime of apostasy is before the Majlis. If anything underlines the degree of concern about human rights in Iran, that is very much it.
Notwithstanding all of that, it is right that we say to the Government of Iran and their people that we want a legitimate relationship, and that we want the regime to engage with the international community. I welcome the recent decision of the US Administration to make that very clear. I hope that we will see a response to that.
Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends, have raised a number of questions to which I will try to respond. Before I do so, it may be useful for me to outline, in brief, the history of the camp to date. The People’s Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran—or Mujaheddin-e-Khalq—was founded in Iran in 1965 with the broad aim of replacing the Shah and the political situation in which he dominated.
In its first years, the MEK’s main focus was on organisational and ideological work, but in the early 1970s, it carried out violent attacks against the interests of the Shah, his Government and their western allies. After the February 1979 revolution, the MEK continued to condone violence. In the course of 1980 and 1981, the MEK’s relationship with the authorities became increasingly hostile and again violent.
Having fled to Paris in 1981, the exiled MEK moved to Iraq and Camp Ashraf in June 1986. The Iraqi regime under Saddam provided land for bases and helped equip the MEK’s armed force in Iraq—the National Liberation Army. MEK forces fought on the Iraqi side during the Iran-Iraq war. They claimed responsibility for a series of attacks during the 1990s and a spate of attacks in the early part of 2001 against numerous Iranian targets, both in Iran and around the world. Following the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK turned over its arms to US forces in Camp Ashraf.
The legal position was a key issue for the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). As I understand it, the US Government’s position is that members of the MEK in Camp Ashraf are to be treated as protected persons for the purposes of the fourth Geneva convention. The UK position has been that as the fourth Geneva convention ceased to apply in Iraq after 28 June 2004, the designation of “protected persons” under that particular convention could no longer be applicable as 28 June 2004 signified the end of the occupation. However, that does not mean that the residents in the camp are entitled to no protection under Iraqi or international law.
Our view is that we stopped being the occupiers under the Geneva convention after 28 June 2004. Our obligations as occupiers continued for one year only
after the occupation. I mention that because the hon. Gentleman raised that point directly with me. The year starts after 28 June 2004.
Mr. Binley: Our permanent membership of the UN Security Council has an impact on our responsibilities for upholding international humanitarian law. Therefore, are there not responsibilities in that respect?
Bill Rammell: I will come on to how we are trying to carry out our responsibilities notwithstanding the fact that we are now dealing with a sovereign state and a democratic country that has its own rights and responsibilities. Inevitably, in those circumstances, our relationship will be different from the one in which we are the occupier.
It has always been clear that, with the expiry at the end of 2008 of the UN Security Council resolution mandate for the coalition forces in Iraq, responsibility for the security and administration of the camp and its residents would have to pass from the US to the Government of Iraq. That transfer was carried out in phases and was completed on 1 January 2009. At that time, we understand that some 3,000 members of the MEK were present at the camp. Throughout its discussions with the Government of Iraq on the modalities of the transfer, the US rightly sought assurances that the Camp Ashraf residents would continue to be treated humanely, that their fundamental human rights would be maintained, and that they would be treated in accordance with the constitution of Iraq, in accordance with Iraqi law, and in accordance with Iraq’s international obligations. Such assurances were readily provided by the Iraqi authorities to the satisfaction of the US authorities.
Moreover, the Iraqi authorities agreed to allow access to the camp by appropriate international organisations to assist the camp residents in securing a safe future. In that regard, we are comforted in the knowledge that the International Committee of the Red Cross continues to visit the camp on a regular basis. It follows developments closely and we very much welcome its involvement.
In parallel, the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights regularly visits the camp and has given assurances to a representative body of the residents. Plans were made to conduct a survey, through interviews with residents of the camp, in an effort to establish whether they wished to be voluntarily repatriated to Iran, or to seek residency in a third country. That survey would also enable the Ministry of Human Rights to verify the details of those currently residing in the camp.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock contacted my office last week concerning recent developments at the camp. I was able to inform him, through our Iraq group at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that we understood that the MEK had seized back a building that had been designated for the purpose of those interviews. We are unclear as to their motives for taking that action. We are also aware that the Iraqi security forces had taken measures to restrict visitors into the camp out of concern that they would not be permitted by the MEK to leave.
Andrew Mackinlay:
The Minister is trespassing on the question of visitors. In the past few weeks, two UK citizens wanted to visit loved ones. One of them, Mr. Tabrizi, who is known to us in the parliamentary campaign committee, was turned away. There was no question of him not being able to come out again. He wanted to see
his loved ones and relatives and he was prevented from doing so. That is the pattern. When the Minister goes back to the Foreign Office, I should be grateful if he could look into the matter. It reinforces my point that there should be an official visit from the United Kingdom to Camp Ashraf to check out the issues of property being taken back, the census and visits to loved ones, and whether people can leave, which are the things that I want tested.
Bill Rammell: If my hon. Friend provides the details to my office, I will ensure that I look into that specific case. I will come to his suggestion. As he and I have discussed, I am minded to do something about it.
Notwithstanding the action, we believe that residents remain free to meet family members and other visitors outside the camp. The Red Cross is rightly monitoring such visits, and we are told that UN officials have also visited the camp as recently as 19 March this year. All of that is welcome. However, the British embassy in Baghdad is pursuing the possibility of a visit by a consular official to Camp Ashraf to confirm whether any of its residents are entitled to UK consular assistance. Importantly, that will also allow us to remind the Iraqi Government further of their earlier assurances regarding Camp Ashraf residents and of the amount of interest in the issue within the United Kingdom.
I am not aware of the statement by Dr. al-Rubaie. Nevertheless, I can say that the Iraqi Government have repeatedly maintained assurances to respect the human rights of Camp Ashraf residents. We shall certainly remind them of that obligation as we pursue the consular visit.
The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) mentioned de-proscription. There have been two court cases: the UK court case in respect of de-proscription
of the MEK and the decision in the European Court of First Instance. In both cases, this Government—rightly, in my view, whatever opinion we might have of the MEK—sought to uphold the rule of law; certainly in the European Union case, we were instrumental in ensuring that.
However, I agree with the hon. Lady that upholding de-proscription is not the same as saying that the MEK best represents the interests and views of the Iranian people. We certainly have reservations about the MEK’s assertion that it represents a democratic opposition in exile. We see no evidence of popular support for the MEK in Iran, partly because of its responsibility for terrorist attacks resulting in the deaths of many Iranian citizens and partly because it fought alongside Iraqi forces against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.
Nevertheless—this is the important point that cuts to the heart of the concerns expressed—the Government of Iraq have stated that no residents of Camp Ashraf will be forcibly transferred to a country where they have reason to fear persecution based on their political opinions or religious beliefs, or where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be tortured. We are satisfied that the Iraqi Government are working with international organisations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to ensure a humanitarian solution that will allow camp residents either to return home or to be resettled, if they choose, in third countries. We will do everything in our power, consistent with the recognition that Iraq is now a sovereign democratic state, to encourage that process.
I congratulate hon. Members on raising these legitimate concerns. I hope that my responses have given some reassurance.
10.54 am
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |