Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08BAGHDAD2946
2008-09-12 09:45:00
SECRET
Embassy Baghdad
Cable title:  

ICRC STATE OF PLAY ON MEK

Tags:  PHUM PINS PTER ICRC KJUS IZ 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO1439
PP RUEHBC RUEHDE RUEHIHL RUEHKUK
DE RUEHGB #2946/01 2560945
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
P 120945Z SEP 08
FM AMEMBASSY BAGHDAD
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9372
INFO RUCNRAQ/IRAQ COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 BAGHDAD 002946 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/09/2018
TAGS: PHUM PINS PTER ICRC KJUS IZ
SUBJECT: ICRC STATE OF PLAY ON MEK

REF: A. BAGHDAD 2773

B. BAGHDAD 2658

C. BAGHDAD 2582

Classified By: PolMilCouns Michael Corbin for reasons
1.4 (b) and (d).

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 BAGHDAD 002946

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/09/2018
TAGS: PHUM PINS PTER ICRC KJUS IZ
SUBJECT: ICRC STATE OF PLAY ON MEK

REF: A. BAGHDAD 2773

B. BAGHDAD 2658

C. BAGHDAD 2582

Classified By: PolMilCouns Michael Corbin for reasons
1.4 (b) and (d).


1. (S) SUMMARY: ICRC conducted its first official visit to
the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK) at Camp Ashraf from August 24-26
in line with its agreement to increase ICRC involvement in
the transfer of responsibility for the MEK from the USG to
the GOI. ICRC Iraq delegation head Juan Pedro Schaerer said
the MEK leadership at Ashraf acknowledge the impending
transfer of responsibility to the GOI but are very concerned
with the GOI's public statements on the MEK. ICRC indicated
a desire to conduct follow-on visits to Ashraf but will not
establish a permanent presence in the camp. ICRC sent a
letter to the Ambassador on September 1 emphasizing the
ICRC's views on non-refoulement, as well as the need to
determine each individual's legal status before the transfer.
END SUMMARY.


2. (SBU) ICRC conducted its first officiaQisit to the
Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK) at Camp Ashraf from August 24-26, led
by the head of the ICRC Iraq delegation, Juan Pedro Schaerer.
(Note: ICRC members had conducted an initial reconnaissance
of the area outside Ashraf on August 19. End Note.) This
visit was a primary step in the ICRC plan to increase its
involvement in the transfer of responsibility for the MEK
from the USG to the GOI. The delegation drove to Camp Ashraf
from Balad and stayed at the camp's hotel. The delegation
met with the leadership and individual members, but did not
have individual discussions with every member. Schaerer and
ICRC Detention Coordinator Pascal Porchet discussed their
trip with EmbOffs on August 28.

--------------
OBSERVATIONS OF MEK
--------------


3. (C) Schaerer said the MEK leaders acknowledged to him
the reality of the impending transfer of responsibility to
the GOI but are very concerned with the GOI's public
statements on the MEK (ref A). He said, however, that most
MEK members are shielded from public information by the
leadership, do not accept the upcoming transfer, and do not
know all the details about the transfer. The MEK were

concerned that the GOI will turn Ashraf into a detention
facility. The MEK were also worried that some members would
be arrested and deported to Iran, insisting that this would
violate the principle of non-refoulement. (Note: MEK
members do not have refugee status. End Note.) ICRC
explained that the principle of non-refoulement does not
grant immunity, and those faced with arrest warrants could
face prosecution. The leaders did not want to acknowledge
that past cases against them might be valid. ICRC stressed
that this
was the case.


4. (C) Schaerer said the leadership has strong influence
over each member and guessed (correctly, see ref A) that
there was little variation in the answers provided by
respondents to the recent TF134 census of the MEK, and that
members showed strong allegiance to the organization. He
said there will be problems in facilitating family visits to
Ashraf, noting that the leaders had told him they opposed
family visits to the camp. Schaerer commented that he
believed such visits "go against organization principles."
However, ICRC will have to facilitate family visits if they
get requests from family members who want to visit relatives.
Moreover, TF-134's census showed that the vast majority of
MEK members would welcome family contact.

--------------
ICRC ROLE
--------------


5. (SBU) ICRC intends to continue engaging with the MEK and
GOI on the transfer process and plans for GOI responsibility
of the camp. The delegation has recently met with the
Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Interior, Defense, and Human
Rights on ensuring protection for the individuals at the
camp, and will continue discussions with these ministries.
Schaerer told the MEK that ICRC will be very involved in
implementation of the transfer to ensure protections. ICRC
indicated it would continue to visit Ashraf regularly.
Schaerer stated that ICRC would not have a permanent presence
at Ashraf, but was confident that the MEK would be in
constant contact with the ICRC.

--------------
GOI- POST TRANSFER PLANS

BAGHDAD 00002946 002 OF 002


--------------


6. (S) Schaerer predicted the GOI will place more
limitations on the camp once they take responsibility,
especially on the MEK's political activities, including its
finances. (Note: Minister Wijdan has confirmed that it is
the GOI's intent to institute a stricter regime at Ashraf.
End note.) Schaerer said he understood why the GOI cannot
allow the MEK to exist as an organization since its political
goals are at odds with the GOI. Referring to the 2004
agreement between the MEK and MNF-I to lay down weapons and
renounce terrorism in return for protection, Schaerer said
these conditions will be insufficient for the GOI. On
refugee concerns, Schaerer said the GOI had no plans yet to
deal with members who choose to leave the MEK and seek
refugee status and emphasized this is a necessary step in
planning for the transfer. (Note: Minister Wijdan told
PolOff Aug 23 that the GOI has recognized the need to plan
for this eventuality, but we have not yet seen any sign that
planning is underway. End Note.)

--------------
LETTER TO USG
--------------


7. (S) On September 1, ICRC sent a letter to the Ambassador
describing the recent ICRC trip to Ashraf, where "the
residents in Ashraf expressed, collectively and individually,
strong concerns and fears for their physical integrity" upon
transfer. Additionally, "none of the residents met by ICRC
delegates in private interviews expressed the wish to be
voluntarily repatriated to their country of origin or of
former residence."


8. (S) ICRC emphasized that the USG is responsible for
upholding its non-refoulement obligations under international
law, which, according to the ICRC, preclude the USG "from
transferring any person within its effective control to the
effective control of another State if a real risk exists that
they may face arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, or
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
(Embassy Legal Adviser's comment: The USG does not agree
that it has any such obligation as a matter of law. As a
matter of policy, however, the USG will not send any
individual to a state where (1) it is more likely than not
that he or she faces torture, or (2) in appropriate cases, he
or she has a well-founded fear of persecution and would not
be disqualified from protection on criminal- or
security-related grounds. This policy, however, is not
implemented in the same manner for in-country transfers as
for cross-border transfers. USG efforts to ensure humane
treatment of the residents of Camp Ashraf must recognize that
the GOI has primary responsibility for individuals located
within its sovereign territory. End comment.) ICRC
recommended that the USG assess whether there is a risk of
violation of fundamental rights before transferring any
person. The letter also encouraged the USG and GOI to
clarify and determine the legal status of each individual
before the transfer.

--------------
COMMENT
--------------


9. (S) ICRC's visit to Ashraf was a positive and necessary
step in the impending transfer process. ICRC will be engaged
in this issue, and we will continue encouraging their active
role. Although the USG and ICRC do not share the same
interpretation of non-refoulement obligations, we agree that
a measured and open process can best assure the safety of
Ashraf residents as US protection comes gradually to an end.
The GOI's humane treatment and non-refoulement assurances
(ref B),which the GOI spokesman has referred to publicly,
address many of the concerns raised by the ICRC.
CROCKER