|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 20th, 2008 STATEMENT BY SIR JOHN SAWERS, UNITED KINGDOM PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS, IN SECURITY COUNCIL DEBATE ON SOMALIA, 20 NOVEMBER 2008 Thank you Mr President and can I join others in thanking our briefers today, perhaps above all the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organisation whose presence today is very welcome - thank you for your contribution. We have had the Secretary-General’s report. It gives us a thorough and realistic analysis of what is clearly a very bleak picture on the ground in Somalia. And that situation on the ground seems to be getting worse in three different dimensions: First, the security on land. Our hopes had been raised by the Djibouti Agreement. The preliminary work to implement it was moving forward, but the hope that Somalia was finally turning a corner after some 17 years of violence has not been followed through on the ground. Despite the best efforts of the Special Representative, Mr Ould Abdullah, in mediating dialogue, the political process now looks fragile, not helped, it has to be said, by the divisions that have opened up within the Transitional Federal Government. And the recent reports of heightened violence and territorial advances by the Shabaab suggest a worsening security situation. So the situation on the ground in Somalia is getting worse, not better. Secondly, security at sea is also getting dramatically worse as colleagues have said. The incidents of piracy off the Somali coast have reached new heights in the last weeks. We deplore those acts of piracy, which can only make it even more difficult to bring stability to Somalia itself. The United Kingdom is playing a full part in the international deployments to try to combat this. We have a frigate of the Royal Navy dealing full time with piracy and two other frigates deployed in the area ready to act and we have also offered to support the upcoming European Union Mission by providing the operational headquarters and commanding the operation. We have got Resolution 1816 which is due for renewal next month which authorises these operations. We need to look at that carefully to ensure that the mandate for the naval operations gives those in the field the means needed to suppress and deter piracy. Addressing the piracy problem cannot wait until peace and harmony returns to Somalia. Thirdly, as the Secretary-General’s report notes, the humanitarian situation is getting worse again. Over 3 million Somalis are now dependent on food aid and securing humanitarian access is going to remain a pressing and difficult challenge. We would welcome advice from OCHA in the near future on how to address this problem. Now, the Secretary-General has invited the Security Council to send a force to take responsibility for security in Mogadishu and to enable the Ethiopian forces to withdraw. And the Secretary-General’s report is very clear about the options for such a force. Its firm recommendation, which we think is based on sound military analysis, is that a Multi-National Force has to go in first to secure the situation on the ground and create the conditions that would allow the United Nations Peacekeeping Operation to go in. Frankly, Mr President, it is hard to envisage a traditional UN peacekeeping force having the capabilities or the mandate required to deal with the challenges that Somalia currently poses. And this Council should not mandate a force which we do not think is up to the task. We must learn the lessons from elsewhere of what happens when we send an under-equipped force into a theatre where conflict persists. We’d also welcome further work by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to prepare for the time when a peacekeeping operation is feasible, including being ready to conduct a technical assessment mission as soon as conditions on the ground allow. Mr President, Somalia is arguably the intractable challenge facing the Security Council in the period ahead. I know that all of us around this table feel the need to act and to take our responsibilities here, but we have to learn the lessons of experience, not only in Somalia, but elsewhere, including, for example, Darfur. The Secretary-General’s report may not satisfy all of us in all respects, but it is a sober and responsible effort to identify the very limited options that are available to this Council and we believe that we should proceed with our deliberations on its basis. Thank you Mr President. Hazel Foster (Miss) —————– So, South Africa’s Ambassador to the UN, Mr.Dumisani S. Kumalo says that solving the piracy issue is not the answer - more is needed. To be exact - “the problem with Somalia isn’t going to be solved solely by addressing the issue of piracy or tackling the humanitarian problem on the ground” Did anyone ask him where the hundreds of millions of dollars went that were already paid in ransom for pirated ships? Clearly, he does not think that the poor in Somalia are starving because the rich countries do not send them help. Does he think that outsiders would be welcome even if they come loaded with help? Does he think that without an African real leadership there will be anything better then a future Blackwater fleet just killing anyone who will dare to use a speed boat and will not be lily white? So, in effect, is there much difference between Somalia and other failed States - in major part this goes also for Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, like Iraq, Somalia is an agglomeration of different parts into one official State. Would it not be better to agree that Somaliland is an independent State from Somalia? Let the local governing body get the responsibility to run their own business? Then we are left with the Southern two sections of Somalia and the claim that some of the tribes have on Ethiopian land. This is still very complicated, but it moves the problem at least away from a major part of the sea shore.Whatever - the grand piracy issue no less then a mega-tanker has finally landed the problem on the UNSC table. Somalia, like Sudan, like much of Sub Sahara Africa, former colonies that nili-wili became States, have structural problems that are not of the IMF kind. That Is The Real Issue That Should Be Put On The UNSC Table. Permalink | ### |
Printer Friendly
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 12th, 2008 The Administration still hopes that the US is in Iraq for the long haul, with so much sunk into Iraq, how can Obama cut the losses and go?
Tuesday 11 November 2008
by: Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t | Report
Many Iraqis fear that the Bush administration’s last-ditch efforts to gain control of their oil will leave their resources in the hands of the US for decades to come. (Photo: Nabil al-Jurani / AP)
As the Bush administration rumbles to an end, it is pushing with increasing urgency for a commitment to a long-term US presence in Iraq. Though the military aspect of this “commitment” has garnered substantial publicity, the administration is equally invested in the economic aspect: securing US control over Iraqi oil before Bush leaves office, according to experts in the field. A leaked version of the US-Iraq status-of-forces agreement (SOFA), supplied and translated for Truthout by American Friends Service Committee Iraq consultant Raed Jarrar, states that the US will indefinitely “continue to protect Iraq’s natural resources of gas and oil and protect Iraq’s foreign financial and economic assets.” According to Jarrar, the Bush administration and the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are in basic agreement on the SOFA, probably because an American presence in Iraq would keep Maliki in power. However, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people oppose the pact and reject US control over Iraq’s resources. In October, just as the Bush and Maliki administrations were attempting to finalize the SOFA’s terms - under the wary gaze of Parliament - the Iraqi cabinet dropped another big one in Parliament’s lap: the Iraq oil law. The law would set the rules for foreign investment in Iraq’s oil industry, and determine how oil revenues are shared within Iraq. Many in Parliament say both the SOFA and the oil law would prolong the US occupation, allowing American control over both its people and its resources. Parliament will debate the oil law this week. Cleric Hashim al-Ta’i, of the Iraqi Islamic Party, captured the sentiments of many in a late October sermon on the Baghdad Satellite Channel, saying, “There is a unanimous Iraqi voice which says: No to an agreement that consolidates the occupation and prolongs its life; no to an agreement that consolidates sectarianism and racism and fragments the country into groups and cantons; no to an agreement that mortgages the country and its resources for many decades.” However, that unified voice clashes with another, very powerful voice in Iraq: American and British oil companies, which share the interests of the Bush team, according to Antonia Juhasz, a fellow with both the Institute for Policy Studies and Oil Change International. “US and British oil companies and the Bush administration have been circling their wagons in Iraq over the last few months to bring both the SOFA and the Iraq oil law to a conclusion before Bush’s term in office officially comes to a close,” Juhasz told Truthout. “The Bush administration, US oil companies and the al-Maliki government are all on the same timeline for trying to lock in the continued presence of the US military in Iraq, which is the al-Maliki government’s only hope of holding on to power - and US oil corporations’ only hope of securing their long-sought control over Iraqi oil.” The large oil companies seek long-term contracts that would give them control over much of Iraq’s oil and oil production, according to Juhasz. Although Kurdistan has entered into several contracts with foreign oil companies, Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein Al Shahristani declared that any contract signed before the passage of the oil law is void. In addition to pushing the international SOFA and Iraq’s oil law, the Bush administration is attempting to unilaterally carve a place in US law for a takeover of Iraqi oil, according to Jim Fine, legislative secretary for foreign policy for the Friends Committee on National Legislation. In a signing statement tacked on to the 2009 Defense Authorization Bill, Bush excused himself from a provision intended to rein in US power of Iraq’s oil. The statement - if one accepts it as authoritative - would allow Bush to use defense funds “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.” Bush wrote that prohibiting such a use of funds “purport(s) to impose requirements that could inhibit the president’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations.” Experts view this latest expansion of Bush’s powers in Iraq as a kind of rush to the finish line: an attempt to accomplish as many of the administration’s oil-control goals before it steps down and the Obama administration - which may well have different ideas - steps up. Bush’s signing statement could forebode a weighty US push for Iraq’s oil in the next two months, whether or not the SOFA passes, according to Fine. “The signing statement is in effect a corollary to the Bush doctrine of preventive warfare, which he is now extending to military action to seize control of natural resources in a foreign country,” Fine told Truthout. “The logic of the signing statement is inescapable and extremely dangerous. Absent repudiation by a future president, this and other authorities that President Bush has asserted in signing statements constitute a foundation for draconian unilateral action by the US.” However, the US’s next president seems to have a very different interpretation of the US’s relationship to Iraq’s oil. In fact, Juhasz took the title of her book, “The Tyranny of Oil,” from a line in President-elect Barack Obama’s Iowa Caucus victory speech. Obama emphasized his hopes for a transition away from oil and toward sustainable energy sources throughout his campaign. He has also promised a drawdown of troops in Iraq. The next two months will measure just how far President Bush is willing to go to fulfill the objectives that, many say, underlie his occupation of Iraq. Erik Leaver, Foreign Policy in Focus’s policy outreach director, says that the administration’s last-ditch efforts - the signing statements, the SOFA, the oil law pressure - demonstrate that Bush has not taken his eye off Iraqi oil. “Although Bush has verbally assured the Iraqi people that we are not occupying their country for oil, the actions of the United States indicate otherwise,” Leaver told Truthout. “The language calling for the protection of Iraq’s oil resources in the long term agreement between Iraq and the US is another strong indication of what the US intent is inside of Iraq - gaining long-term access to Iraq’s oil.”
Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 1st, 2008 This WEEK in the European Union Still dated 31.10.2008 an EUOBSERVER / EU WEEKLY AGENDA (3-9 November) - Europe’s attention will be focused on the US elections this Wednesday, when senator Barack Obama is set to become America’s first black president if recent polls prove to be accurate. Two days after the election of the new US president, EU leaders will hold an extraordinary meeting on Friday. Summoned by the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who chairs the bloc’s rotating presidency, the heads of state and government are to formulate a common position ahead of the G20 summit scheduled a week later in Washington to address the financial crisis and its effects on the world economy. Europeans will be watching the US presidential elections closely on Wednesday, with a clear preference for senator Barack Obama. The consequences of the financial crisis will also be reflected in the European Commission’s autumn economic forecast for 2008-2010 to be published on Monday (3 November). The forecast will cover economic growth, inflation, employment and the government deficits. A day later, Eurogroup chair Jean-Claude Juncker will give the European parliament’s economic affairs committee his assessment of the way the crisis is having an impact on the bloc’s economies. Also on Tuesday, the European Parliament begins its “Arab week”, which will see a number of Iraqi MPs and the secretary-general of the League of Arab States meeting European legislators. On Wednesday, enlargement is high on the agenda, with commissioner Olli Rehn presenting in the European Parliament an updated overview of the EU’s enlargement policy and a summary of the progress made over the past twelve months by each of the countries that want to join the EU. According to a draft version seen by EUobserver, Croatia could conclude accession negotiations with the EU by the end of next year, if it fulfills the remaining conditions, while Serbia could become an official EU candidate. Macedonia will still not be offered a date to open membership talks with the bloc, while Bosnia-Herzegovina is to be criticised for its “inflammatory rhetoric” that “adversely affected the functioning of institutions and slowed down reform”. Turkey still has a long way to go before concluding accession talks, the draft report reads, but the EU hails Ankara’s role as promoter of regional stability after the Georgian crisis. Lobby for Nabucco after the Georgian crisis: The August war between Russia and Georgia also highlighted Turkey’s “strategic significance for the EU energy security, particularly by diversifying supply routes”, the draft report reads, mentioning the importance to go ahead with the planned Nabucco gas pipeline, which will connect Austria, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria through Turkey to the gas-rich Caspian countries. Promoting Nabucco will be also the aim of energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs next week, when he starts a five-day tour on Wednesday to the Caspian countries, Georgia and Turkey. He is scheduled to hold high-level talks on the issue for the first time since Georgian crisis, a development that made Caspian countries weary about their relationship with the West. An EU-China energy conference will take place Thursday and Friday in Brussels, gathering industry and administration officials from the two sides, with discussions focusing on renewable energy, nuclear power and carbon capture and storage. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on October 31st, 2008 Following the incident at the Syrian - Iraqi border, and the Iraqi position rejecting that incident, with seeming backing from other Arab Governments and the Iranian Government also, now Syria feels encouraged to clamp further down on whatever flowers of wisdom appear in that country. From the press - it seems that Canadian and Dutch diplomats follow closely these developments. What will all of this bode for the Middle East? Remember please that the UN will have to extend or not to extend - the US involvement in Iraq by the end of December. Syria Sentences 12 for Political Crimes Syria Comes Down on Dissidents - Stephen Starr Several Internet cafes dotted around Damascus have recently seen new regulations posted whereby every computer user must provide an identity card before being assigned a computer. The computer number and time spent on the Internet is then recorded. (Asia Times-Hong Kong) Will Syria Dump Its Old Friends? - David Blair ———————– Reaction to the US Raid into Syria: Only Muted Outrage. By ANDREW LEE BUTTERS/BAGHDAD Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2008, www.time.com
On the face of it, last weekend’s raid by U.S. Special Forces on Iraqi insurgents sheltering just over the border in Syria was a risky roll of the dice. After all, the political and diplomatic balances in the region are in a state of flux, anticipating possible changes resulting from forthcoming elections in America, Israel, Iran and Iraq, and also peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians and possibly Syria. And then there are the troubled negotiations over a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that would allow U.S. forces to continue operating in Iraq next year, in which the Iraqis are particularly concerned to avoid their country being used as a platform from which the U.S. can attack their neighbors. More Related Still, the attack on al-Qaeda weapons smuggler Abu Ghadiya may not have been quite as risky as it may appear. Sure it embarrassed the Iraqi government, which loudly condemned the action. And it was grist to the mill for Iran, which has strongly opposed the SOFA deal because of its own fears about the presence of U.S. troops on its doorstep, and which remains influential within the Iraqi ruling coalition. Syria, obviously, felt compelled to ritually denounce what it called “terrorist aggression.” But unable to either prevent the Americans entering its territory or to retaliate directly, the Assad regime was left to demand that the U.N. ban such cross-border raids, and to shut down the American Community school and an American cultural center in the Syrian capital. But the Syria attack is unlikely to have any real impact on the prospects for reaching agreement on SOFA — those were looking grim even before the raid, largely because Iraq’s leaders, who face regional and national elections over the next year, are mindful of the fact that most Iraqis want foreign troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, and that in the ballot booth, they might not look favorably on politicians who had invited the American forces to stay. At the same time, Iraqi public opinion is hardly opposed to the U.S. killing jihadis and smugglers who have wrought terrible carnage in this country. Iraqis have been more inclined to ask why Syria seems to still be harboring the kind of terrorists who have killed so many innocent civilians here. And even Syria may not be as angry with the American actions as the vitriol out of Damascus would suggest. Although reading the goings-on in the opaque authoritarian regime is never easy, it’s certainly clear that Syria faces its own jihadi problem, which may have festered as a result of its own policies: After the U.S. invaded Iraq and began talking about regime-change in Damascus as well, the Syrian government began turning a blind eye toward — even possibly supporting — Ba’athist Iraq insurgents and foreign jihadis who used the Euphrates River valley (where last weekend’s attack occurred) as a kind of a Ho Chi Minh trail into Iraq. But in the last year or so, the Syrians had begun clamping down on the jihadis, in part because they feared the danger of being dragged into a chaotic conflict if Iraq falls apart. And the secular regime in Damascus has long been a target of a homegrown Sunni insugency. But Syria may be having more trouble reining in the jihadis than it expected. Earlier this month, a car bomb exploded in Damascus, an attack that many interpreted as a retaliation from jihadi groups. If so, the Syrians may not be all that sad to see the last of Abu Ghadiya and his ilk. Damascus has much to fear from allowing a robust jihadi insurgent underground to grow roots on Syrian soil, and much to gain from U.S.-sponsored peace talks with Israel, which Syria says its wants so badly. Allowing American incursions now to pass without response may give the Syrians more leverage when they finally get to the bargaining table. But that’s not to say that these cross-border incursions wont have consequences. The Bush administration is claiming the right to go after terrorist groups even if that means violating the sovereignty of other countries. But others may be inclined to make use of the precedent in a manner less welcome to Washington. Already, Turkey has been launching strikes against the PKK, a militant group of Turkish Kurds hiding in the mountains of northern Iraq. The Turks say this is self-defense, but Iraq’s Kurds worry this is just the beginning of a move to crush Kurdish aspirations for autonomy. And one day Iran could decide that it, too, has a right to attack militant groups — some of them allegedly receiving covert U.S. backing — that are launching attacks on Iran from the mountains of northern Iraq. And to the extent that Iran fears cross-border raids from U.S. forces in Iraq, it has plenty of incentive to do whatever it can to dissuade its Iraqi allies, who include key players in the current government, from agreeing to extend the American presence. —————–
The Associated Press DAMASCUS, Syria — A Syrian television station is reporting that the country is reducing the number of troops on its border with Iraq in response to a deadly U.S. cross-border raid. Syrian and Iraqi officials did not immediately confirm the report. The private station, Dunia, showed footage Thursday of Syrian troops dismantling positions on the border and leaving the area. The report says the act was a Syrian response to the “American aggression.” On Sunday, the U.S. military launched a deadly raid into Syria. Washington hasn’t formally acknowledged the raid. But U.S. officials say the target was a top al-Qaida in Iraq figure who operated a network that smuggled fighters into Iraq. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on October 29th, 2008 Iraq condemns US raid on Syrian village: American troops used Iraqi territory as ’staging ground’ for attack. By Patrick Cockburn The Iraqi government has unexpectedly denounced a CIA raid on a compound in a Syrian border village that killed an al-Qa’ida commander who dispatched fighters into Iraq. “The Iraqi government rejects US aircraft bombarding posts inside Syria,” said an Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, in a surprise rebuke to Washington. “The constitution does not allow Iraq to be used as a staging ground to attack neighbouring countries.”
The Syrian government yesterday ordered the closure of an American school and a US cultural centre in Damascus in retaliation. But the Sunni rebellion has largely subsided since 2007 and Syria has become more co-operative in stopping the movement of fighters across the border. The US and Iraqi governments also claim to have succeeded in largely eliminating al-Qa’ida in Iraq in Anbar province, which has a long common border with Syria. Abu Ghadiyah’s smuggling activities would have been less significant than in the past. The CIA-led raid into Syrian territory will deepen suspicions in Syria and Jordan that, so long as the US has a military presence in Iraq, it will be used as a launching pad for operations against them. Iran has already made clear that it is against the Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa), negotiated by Iraq and the US over the past eight months. The decision on signing the agreement has divided the Iraqi government, and the cabinet is looking for amendments. In theory Sofa would increase Iraqi control but its critics claim it would formalise the occupation. US officials are trying to get the pact signed before the UN mandate for the US occupation runs out at the end of the year. The decision on whether or not to sign Sofa has split the Iraqi politicians. The ministers of defence, interior, foreign affairs and finance are in favour; so too are the Kurdish parties. But the Shia religious parties are dubious or against it. The US raid into Syria is likely only to increase those doubts. =================== We posed the question about Iraq - an obvious question. But what went on - the timing - may actually point at Syria. Here the situation is not clear cut. So what is the stand of the Suni Arab States and of Iran, in the matter of the Syrian attempt to play in the nuclear arena? Now that is a very different question that leads to the same underlying issue nevertheless - that issue is why does the US insist on being addicted to oil - and that is now a US election issue!
Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on October 21st, 2008 An Ex-Powell Aide Explains Why the Time Is Right for an Obama Endorsement–UPDATEDon “Mother Jones” - October 21, 2008. http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/arch… UPDATE: On Sunday, Colin Powell did endorse Barack Obam. Appearing on Meet The Press, he presented an eloquent statement of support in which he hailed Obama’s “transformational” role, leadership ability, and intellectual curiosity. Powell emphasized that he believed that John McCain, his longtime friend, could be a good president, but he maintained that the GOP has become too much in hock to its right-wing base and that Sarah Palin was not at all ready to be president. Despite Powell’s tarnished reputation–due to his starring role in the Iraq WMD fiasco–his unequivocal endorsement is a boost for Obama and yet one more problem for McCain. The below piece was written before Powell did the deed, but note Larry Wilkerson’s explanation of the timing of Powell’s endorsement. In this instance–unlike when he backed Bush’s invasion of Iraq–Powell stuck to the Powell Doctrine, at least the Powell Doctrine of Decision-making…. With NBC News reporting that Colin Powell will appear on Meet the Press this Sunday, speculation is mounting that former Republican secretary of state will endorse Barack Obama for president. Politico reports Retired Gen. Colin Powell, once considered a potential running mate for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), now may endorse his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), according to Republican sources. But an air of mystery surrounds Powell’s planned live appearance Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and no one is sure what he will say. Predicting the most anticipated endorsement of the 2008 campaign has been a pundit standby for months. In June, Robert Novak asserted, “Powell probably will enter Obama’s camp at a time of his own choosing.” In August Bill Kristol declared that Powell would endorse Obama at the Democratic convention and “quite possibly” speak at the convention. Last week, Lawrence O’Donnell wrote, “It now seems beyond doubt that Colin Powell will endorse Barack Obama and thereby hammer the final nail in the coffin of the Republican campaign to hold onto the White House.” He cited no sources. Will Powell take the leap this weekend? In tracking the Powell story these past few months, I have periodically checked in with Larry Wilkerson, who was Powell’s chief of staff at the State Department and who had worked with Powell in a variety of positions going back to 1989. Wilkerson always said the same thing: with Powell, it’s all about the 60-percent rule–that is, the general manner in which he makes big decisions. Wilkerson explains: Powell has a continuum he uses. It’s based on time and information. Most people make mistakes because on this time/information continuum, they either decide too fast, with too little information, and thus make a bad decision, or they wait to get perfect information and then are a day late, and a dollar short–too late with their decision to influence events. Powell believes the optimum point is 60 percent. That is, if you have roughly 60 percent of the available information–and, in a perfect coincidence–are at about 60 percent of the elapsed time–that is when you are most apt to make the best decision. In the case of this political campaign this process translates into Powell’s having at least a 3-2 chance of being on the winning side were he to endorse, and that he does it early enough to still influence the result. By Wilkerson’s explanation, the circumstances are indeed in place for a Powell endorsement this weekend. At this stage–with Obama opening a lead, McCain failing to win the last debate, the economic crisis continuing to dominate the news, and not much time left for a major change of direction in the campaign–such an endorsement would be rather significant but it would also be only 60-percent gutsy. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on October 6th, 2008 In the midst of the War on Terror, the George Bush administration granted protected status to members of the Iranian terrorist organization Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq, reportedly due to the calculation that their terrorist services could be used against Tehran. This was in spite of the fact that the group was on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations and that President Bush had pointed to Saddam’s patronage of the group as evidence for Iraq’s support of international terrorism. Now, however, the Iraqi government is taking control of the Mujahedin’s camp in Iraq and will likely expel them – but no country is willing to take them. Sincerely, The Bush administration inherited many of Iraq’s problems when it invaded that country, including an Iranian terrorist organization funded and armed by Saddam Hussein, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MKO). Though in the midst of a war on terror, the Bush administration chose in 2003 to protect 3,000 of the organization’s militants and house them in a camp given to the group by Saddam — Camp Ashraf just north of Baghdad. Ever since, the fate of this State Department-listed terrorist organization has been unclear. Hated by Iraqis for its involvement in Saddam’s crimes against the Iraqi people, the Baghdad government wants to expel the group. But no country is willing to take them. Though the Iranian government wants to put the group’s leadership on trial in Iran, it seems less interested in the organization’s rank and file. The European governments have little interest in taking in 3,000 battle-hardened Muslim militants, fearing that they will use Europe as a base to plan and execute further terrorist attacks. The U.S., on the other hand, has already contradicted its own principles by giving preferential treatment to an organization on the State Department’s terrorist list — even though President Bush himself pointed to the organization’s patronage under Saddam Hussein as evidence of Iraq’s support for international terrorists in his speech to the United Nations in September 2002. “Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran,” President Bush said. To complicate matters further, if reports that the U.S. has used MKO terrorists for cross-border raids into Iran are true, then Washington certainly doesn’t want these militants to end up in Iranian hands.
Though approximately 500 MKO fighters have been repatriated to Iran and no reports of abuse have emerged according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which oversaw their return, sending rank-and-file Mujahedin members to Iran against their will would be irresponsible. Hated by the Iranian people for having fought on Saddam’s side in the Iraq-Iran war, the Iranian Mujahedin is understandably fearful of the fate awaiting them in Iran. After all, the Iranian government systematically violates the human rights of journalists and union leaders alike, let alone anti-Iranian terrorists. The Mujahedin is not an effective opposition to the unpopular government in Iran as the organization’s defenders in Washington claim, but a politico-religious cult that brainwashes its members, places children of Mujahedin members with other families in order to prevent parents from defecting, and who according to Human Rights Watch, maintains control by torturing its rank and file. “Members who try to leave the Mujahedin pay a very heavy price,” according to Joe Stork of Human Rights Watch. |