Monday, 15 February 2010

Why this war is about women - and one in particular.


Font size

Reprinted from UK Progressive - 15 February 2010

by Glyn Strong

Inter-Parliamentary Union: Committee On The Human Rights of Parliamentarians. (Case No AFG/01 – Malalai Joya – Afghanistan)

The Inter-Parliamentary Union’s Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians holds its next session from 27 March to 01 April, in Bangkok. That will be its last chance to call for the reinstatement of suspended Afghan MP Malalai Joya whose term of office ends in September.

Joya has been in an administrative wilderness since her expulsion in 2007, but has not been silent – and as news broke that NATO’s much-publicised Operation Moshtarek had already claimed the lives of 12 Afghan civilians, she repeated her claim that ‘defenceless and poor people’ would be its principal victims.

Parliamentary sketches are fun and functional. They remind us that politicians are human and shouldn’t take themselves too seriously - or the electorate too lightly. Recently one of them targeted the Commons Defence Select Committee for making the plight of Afghan women “one of its chief concerns.” The Committee was berated for avoiding any mention of equipment, casualties or logistics . . . while fretting about “the burqa-clad memsahibs.”

A point nicely made by its (male) author, perhaps, but one that struck a jarringly discordant note.

There is nothing funny about having to wear a burqa. And those same ‘memsahibs’ are the mothers and widows whose disaffected offspring make it so easy for the Taliban and other private militia to recruit.

Sixty percent of Afghanistan’s population is under the age of 25; anecdotally, around 70,000 widows are believed to be begging on the streets of Kabul and more than half its 37,000 street children have widowed mothers.

These children have grown up knowing nothing but the grinding poverty or abuse that Afghan women without a male protector have to endure.

The unintended consequences of ignoring these women are legion and frightening. What the Afghan Government, NATO and a plethora of NGOs operating in Afghanistan fail to address, others will.

It’s hard to grasp the bigger picture, or make informed lifestyle choices, when you are homeless and starving.

Far from ridiculing MPs for “raising worries about Afghan wimmin” (sic) with the CDSC, parliamentary sketch writers might be better occupied reflecting on how effective ‘asymmetrical targeting’ of the country’s youth and female population might be - if addressed strategically.

Malalai Joya is one of the more notable ‘memsahibs’; a woman whose polemic speech in the 2003 Loya Jirga made her both a marked woman and a thorn in the flesh of the unreconstructed warlords and drug traffickers she would join in Parliament just two years later, as the country’s youngest MP. She despises the burqa and wears it only for her own safety.

Joya may have been the people’s choice for Farah Province, but her persistent attacks on her fellow parliamentarians earned her only death threats and, in May 2007, suspension from Parliament.

Three years later she inhabits a dangerous limbo, despite repeated calls by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) to reinstate her. During that time, many of the things Joya predicted have come true: civilian and military casualties have mounted and corrupt elections have further eroded Afghans’ faith in the democratic process.

Apparently only one Afghan woman was invited to the recent London Conference, an event that Joya dismissed as a meeting of vultures hovering over the prey that was Afghanistan.

She said afterwards “The Afghan Government begs for funds from the so-called international community in the name of Afghan people, but the billions of dollars poured into the country are looted by warlords, drug-lords, national and international NGOs and government officials, and much of it goes back into the pockets of the donor countries.

“According to US Government sources, since 2001, over $60 billion in aid has been given to Afghanistan. Such a huge amount could change Afghanistan into a paradise if it was properly spent. However, little of it reached the needy people, so I am sure any other amount sent to Afghanistan in the future will have no impact on poor Afghans. Instead it will only widen the gap between rich and poor.”

Joya is a controversial woman. A correspondent from the IPU asked her Defence Committee if she planned to stand for re-election in September adding “This would certainly be a very perilous exercise for her.”

Against the wider background of the war on terror, elections, conferences and troop surges the fate of one woman may well seem irrelevant, but the ‘Joya effect’ is seismic. She is a bellweather for Afghanistan’s future and those who have mocked or ignored her would do well to consider this.

Many of the women who have put their heads above the parapet have been threatened; others like activist Sitara Achakzai and policewoman Malalai Kolkhar have already paid with their lives. Women are much needed in the Afghan National Police force (ANP) which, alongside the Afghan Army, is seen as a key element of post-Moshtarek ‘re-building’.

Joya’s views on this are, as ever, unequivocal “They are very weak and ill-equipped. And more importantly the former warlords are the main actors in both forces, so in fact this is an army of warlords. The Chief of the Afghan, Army General Bismullah Khan, is a former Jehadi commander - a key man in the Northern Alliance who has placed many former Jehadi warlords in key Army posts. And recently (President) Hamid Karzai reassigned the infamous Rashid Dostum as the Army’s Chief of Staff.”

She describes a scenario where ANP members watch helplessly while historical artifacts and drugs are trafficked into Pakistan – too ill-equipped or corrupt to intervene. “The Afghan police force is the most corrupt institution in Afghanistan. Bribery is common and if you have money, by bribing police from top to bottom, you can do almost anything. In many parts of Afghanistan people hate the police more than the Taliban. In Helmand, for instance, people are afraid of policemen who commit violence against people and make trouble. The majority of the police force in this province is addicted to opium and cannabis.”

RIGHT TO SPEAK

Whether people support Malalai Joya, or passionately disagree with her, few would challenge her right to speak – and it is this right that is being ignored, with impunity, by an administration whose actions indicate no will to respect the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which it is a party.

Publication of her book (‘Raising My Voice’), where she characteristically ‘names names’ at international level, has sparked a new wave of threats and anti-Joya articles. If assassinated she will become a martyr, if allowed back into parliament she will once more have an official platform from which to accuse.

Many feel it is far better hobble the process of reinstating her until her appeal is timed out.

The IPU’s exhortations to expedite Joya’s case have achieved little. Over the period of her suspension they have:

Recalled - that parliamentary colleagues who called her a prostitute and a whore and called for her to be raped or killed were neither suspended nor asked to apologise to her.

Drawn attention - to the fact that Article 34 of the Afghan Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and that, in accordance with Article 101, members of the assembly should not be prosecuted on account of opinions they express.

Deplored - the fact that she has not been reinstated. In failing to do so the House of Representatives has prolonged a situation that infringes its own Standing Orders and continues to violate her right to exercise the mandate entrusted to her by her constituents and their right to be represented in parliament.

Some Afghan MPs have gone on record in media interviews saying Joya’s suspension is illegal and contrary to the rules of the house. Among others she cites Ramadan Basherdost, Gul Pacha Majidi, Dr. Mohammad Ali Stegh, Saima Khogeani, Shukuria Barakzai, Ahmad Behzad, Mir Ahmad Joenda and Sardar Rahman Ogholi.

Quietly confident that media coverage of one woman’s appeal will have no chance of deflecting attention from wider NATO activity, all Joya’s enemies have to do is sit and wait. And most Afghans are good at waiting; even Joya, whose impatience and frustration frequently erupt into passionate outbursts.

In Paragraph Three of its January summary the IPU expresses its fear that “her prosecution has not so much to do with a quest for justice, but rather the forthcoming election campaign and effort to eliminate her from the political process in Afghanistan.”

So what does the future hold for Malalai Joya? Supporters in Afghanistan urge her to her to stand for re-election and she says she will announce her decision soon.

She is resigned to the fact that her reinstatement is highly unlikely and is contemptuous of the recent presidential election - “A game full of fraud and double-dealings.” She fears the parliamentary election will be the same: “Warlords are much more powerful and have the upper hand in all official posts of the State so they will strongly influence the votes and there will be large scale fraud in the coming election.”

If Joya is not re-elected she will continue her fight for justice and against the warlords in other ways. Many of her Afghan supporters ask her to form an organised party in Afghanistan so they can formally join it and work together.

“Whatever it is,” she insists, “I want something practical not just something existing in name only.”

Republished with the permission of Glyn Strong © January 2010.


Sunday, 14 February 2010

Counting the cost of Op Moshtarek


Joya Condemns 'ridiculous' military strategy - by Glyn Strong

The Independent - 15 January 2010.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/joya-condemns-ridiculous-military-strategy-1899547.html


"It is ridiculous," said Malalai Joya, an elected member of the Afghan parliament. "On the one hand they call on Mullah Omar to join the puppet regime. On another hand they launch this attack in which defenceless and poor people will be the prime victims. Like before, they will be killed in the Nato bombings and used as human shields by the Taliban. Helmand's people have suffered for years and thousands of innocent people have been killed so far." Her fears were confirmed when Nato reported yesterday that a rocket that missed its target had killed 12 civilians at a house in Marjah.

Dismissing Allied claims that Nato forces won't abandon Afghan civilians after the surge, she said: "They have launched such offensives a number of times in the past, but each time after clearing the area, they leave it and [the] Taliban retake it. This is just a military manoeuvre and removal of Taliban is not the prime objective."

Ms Joya believes that corruption is endemic, citing uranium deposits and opium as incentives for Nato and Afghan officials to retain a presence in Helmand. Operation Moshtarak is described as an inclusive offensive, depending for its longer-term success on involvement of Afghan forces. But Ms Joya said: "The Afghan police force is the most corrupt institution in Afghanistan. Bribery is common and if you have money, by bribing police from top to bottom you can do almost anything. In many parts of Afghanistan, people hate the police more than the Taliban. In Helmand, for instance, people are afraid of police who commit violence against people and make trouble. The majority of the police force in this province are addicted to opium and cannabis."

The suspended MP was not invited to the recent London Conference that discussed her country's future, but she is pessimistic about its outcome. Politicians regard Joya as a loose cannon: quick to criticise but slow to suggest solutions.

Her uncompromising position has, however, earned her legions of supporters. It has also gained her enemies and, after allegedly insulting her fellow parliamentarians in 2007, she was suspended from operating as an MP.

Reflecting on the London Conference, Joya said: "Ordinary Afghan people say it was like a meeting of vultures coming together to discuss how to deal with the prey which is Afghanistan." Joya sees moves towards any reconciliation with the Taliban ' an exclusively male and cruelly anti-female group ' as a betrayal.



Saturday, 2 January 2010

The Female Face of Afghanistan - Edited by Glyn Strong and Fiona Hodgson

http://www.glynstrong.co.uk/files/The%20Female%20Face%20of%20Afghanistanf.pdf

(*Please be patient - this 60 page booklet may take a while to download)

Launched at the House of Commons on Human Rights Day - 10 December 2009.

“Discrimination lies at the root of many of the world’s most pressing human rights problems. No country is immune from this scourge. Eliminating discrimination is a duty of the highest order.”

Navi PillayUnited Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights


“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. These first few famous words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights established 60 years ago the basic premise of international human rights law. Yet today the fight against discrimination remains a daily struggle for millions around the globe. Nowhere is this more evident than in Afghanistan where the international community is actively and publicly involved.

Wednesday, 16 December 2009

Ashraf: A stay of execution?



Yesterday (15.12.09) Khalil Abadi, 44, stood in the December chill of London’s Whitehall, just 100 yards or so from the Ministry of Defence, not far from Downing Street and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.


It was a bleak day; the day Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki had declared that Khalil’s relatives in Iraq’s Ashraf refugee camp, along with the other 3,400 men women and children who had lived there for nearly 24 years, would be forcibly relocated to a grim former prison camp in the desert.

Khalil is one of many Iranian exiles, and British supporters, who staged a hunger strike outside the US Embassy in London’s Grosvenor Square at the end of July, in protest at the brutal assault on Ashraf by Iraqi security forces. Weak ,after more than 70 days without food, he and his companions were eventually rewarded by news that the 37 hostages taken in that attack had been released.

Yesterday the thoughts of Khalil and his companions were once again focused on Ashraf as Lord Robin Corbett (pictured) waved a statement from the Iranian Embassy - attributed to ‘The Closure Committee of the New Iraq Camp’ - and berated those politicians ‘across the road’ whose failure to act had allowed the parlous situation to develop.



Ironically the year long media ban on entering Ashraf was lifted by Baghdad just days before the scheduled eviction and an escorted tour of the closure preparations hastily arranged. A reported bomb blast near an area where reporters were gathered was quickly blamed on the PMOI (People’s Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran) to which Ashraf’s refugee resident’s belong.

Spokeswoman Laila Jazayeri, in London supporting the rally, said “It’s pathetic to try to blame the PMOI. We have wanted media to have access to the camp for months. This is just a government attempt to crudely spin publicity and frighten them away.”

In Iraq, police with loud hailers drove around Ashraf reminding residents of the deadline set by Prime Minister Al-Maliki for their removal - but PMOI representative Mehdi Farahi told Iraqi officials that residents would not leave the land they had bought and lived on for so long.

He said "Any attempt to expel us forcibly will lead to the same clashes and confrontations as those of July 28 and 29. The manner in which the Iraqi Government is acting is contrary to international law."
As Khalil and others started to assemble in London, later to be joined by Lord’s Robin Corbett and Brian Cotter, and lawyers David Vaughan and Nigel Pleming, 37 police vehicles had already entered the camp with officials from the Iraqi Committee for Closing Ashraf (CCA). Journalists and photographers were allowed in with them.

Ashraf’s residents offered no resistance and left all doors and buildings open for visits by the police, Iraqi officials and reporters.

After a meeting between CCA officials and PMOI representatives Iraqi forces took to the streets distributing pamphlets and announcing through loudspeakers that “the Iraqi Government is determined to relocate the residents of this camp to another location” and “willing individuals can refer to the police station or any one of the patrolling vehicles.”

Residents were invited to leave Ashraf and move to ‘luxury hotels in Baghdad’. According to the NCRI not one of the 3,400 residents responded to the offer and the minibuses which had come to displace them returned empty.

By mid afternoon all Iraqi forces had left Ashraf, taking with them all the journalists they had brought.
With nothing resolved, but a growing awareness that the eyes of the world are now on Ashraf both sides are uneasy. Back in London Jazayeri said: “The threat of violence is still very real as the Iraqis could attack the camp and do what they did last time at any moment. There are no guarantees, no written assurances about this. These people are all 'Protected Persons' under the terms of the Geneva Convention and all they are asking for is their basic international and humanitarian rights to be respected by the Iraqi Government. ”

In a ‘relocation’ as questionable as that which saw Germany’s Jews transported to concentration camps in WW2, Ashraf’s population of men, women and children have been told that their new home will be Neqrat al-Salman, a desolate military prison that has been compared to the notorious Abu Ghraib.

A grim fortress in the as-Salman desert region of Al-Muthanna it was used by US forces until last year. Neqrat as-Salman has housed many political prisoners over the years and thousands have died there. It is several days walk from the nearest oasis and the closest location with drinking water is approximately 90 miles away. Hellishly hot in summer it inhabits a landscape replete with snakes, scorpions and no vegetation.

Iraqi army Colonel Bassel told journalists "Camp residents have been aware since October 19 that they are to be cleared out and moved elsewhere while respecting international human rights standards. If they refuse, a high committee will decide what measures to take and we will resolve the problem in a peaceful manner," he added.

The statement from the Iraqi Prime Minister announcing the camp's closure was released on 10 December ; it said “We have taken the decision to get them (the PMOI) out of Iraq . . . and the process of their moving to Neqrat al-Salman is a step on the way of taking them out of the country.

"Their presence in Ashraf represents a danger because of their historical relations with certain political groups, notably with the remains of the former (Iraqi) regime and members of Al-Qaeda."

The United States said last week that it expected the Baghdad government to act legally and humanely when it relocates the camp residents. "The Government of Iraq has assured us that they would not deport any of these citizens to any country where they would be having a well-grounded fear of being treated inhumanely," said State Department spokesman Ian Kelly. But he did not question Iraq’s right to move the refugees.

As Tuesday’s protestors in Whitehall dispersed Khalil’s thoughts were with his relatives. Curious pedestrians attracted by flags and impassioned speeches began to drift away as the speeches ended. “What was that all about then?” a passing photographer asked me.

Laila shrugged. “People should know what is happening. Why is the UN Secretary General silent. Why are the media silent? Why is the UK Government silent?”Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry into events between 2001 and 2009, covering the decision to invade Iraq, is headline news – a retrospective scrutiny of a conflict that is already becoming part of history. Ashraf’s parlous future, and Iran’s hold over the Iraqi regime, is part of its legacy.

Sunday, 13 December 2009

Ashraf: Countdown to genocide . . .

“We’ve got to do all we can to raise awareness of this so that people will know what is going on – but more importantly, so that the Iraqi Government knows that the world is watching and that if what they did in July is repeated there’s going to be, again, a huge question mark about why British troops, men and women, gave their lives to give a new chance for Iraq to build a society that’s free and democratic.” – Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, 10 December 2009


Ten days before Christmas more than 3,000 people face eviction from their home of 20 years in what Labour peer and civil liberties champion Lord Robin Corbett has described as ‘a pact with the devil’.
The men, women and children facing forcible displacement are Iranian refugees, members of the People’s Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran (PMOI), a pro-democracy group granted safe haven under the Geneva Convention. They live in Ashraf, an isolated desert encampment 60km north of Baghdad, dependent on deliveries by road for its survival. Their forced removal comes with the endorsement of Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki whose website publicised a 15th December ‘deadline’ for the evacuation.
While the Iraqi Government now claims that ‘agreement’ has been reached with Ashraf residents the message from those inside is that this is untrue and they are under siege. For days deliveries of meat, vegetables, medicine, fuel and hygiene products have been blocked. Food rots outside the gates. Doctors and journalists are denied access.

To some Iraq’s fixation with a refugee camp in the middle of nowhere is perplexing and dismissed as a domestic issue. But as Iran’s nuclear capability comes under increasing scrutiny and Iraq’s internal stability is shaken by bomb attacks on the capital a bigger picture becomes clearer.

During Iran’s sham elections Ayatollah Khamenei officially demanded that the Iraqi President and Prime Minister agree to expel the PMOI from their country as soon as possible.

President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, in a message to British supporters, explained “Ashraf is the frontline bastion in defending democracy and human rights in Iran. If the regime is defeated in its bid to destroy Ashraf, it cannot contain the people’s uprising.”

Ashraf has achieved iconic status among freedom-loving Iranians, exerting an influence well beyond its geographical boundaries. Paradoxically, this was enhanced by the Iraqi assault on its inhabitants in July.

Mrs. Rajavi told British peers and MPs “The UN High Commission for Refugees, the International Committee of the Red Cross and UN Assistance Mission Iraq has warned repeatedly against forced displacement of Ashraf residents in violation of international human rights law.

“The mullahs are horrified at the rising protests. They insist on distancing Ashraf as far from the (Iranian) border as possible in order to eliminate the dedicated women and men who act as inspiration to the Iranian people’s struggle for freedom. The inhuman siege on Ashraf is the prelude to this plot.”

Speaking only hours ahead of the publicised eviction deadline Lord Corbett asked why the Iraqi president was so exercised about removal of refugees when the country’s capital, Baghdad, was being wrecked by explosions.
“Is this all President Al-Maliki has on his mind? The young, struggling democracy that people are trying to build in his country is still under threat from extremists and one finger we know is in that pie, determined to make life difficult for the new Iraq, belongs to those across the border (in Iran) who, in this pact with the devil, have demanded that whatever force is needed will be used against Camp Ashraf.”
Addressing a cross party assembly of MPs, peers and guests Lord Corbett expressed his disgust at the British Government’s inertia and lambasted Ivan Lewis, Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who still regards the refugees as members of a terrorist organisation.
(In fact the “terror-tag” was formerly lifted from the PMOI last year by the POAC (Proscribed Organisation Appeal Commission). The then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s appeal against the POAC decision was not only thrown out but branded by the Appeal Court as “capricious and speculative”).
Lord Corbett said “I wrote to Ivan Lewis at the end of last month (November), to make sure he knew about the threat to Camp Ashraf made on the 29th of October. He treated with contempt the decision of the POAC and the Court of Appeal and the Council of Ministers of the European Union . . . . The FCO hangs on to stale allegations about the PMOI that have no current relevance. And in many cases the source of the allegations cannot be confirmed.
“When Ivan Lewis wrote back to me, on December 2nd, his letter didn’t even mention the threat to use force against Ashraf in 120 hours time. I find this shaming and I have written to tell him so.”
“I said please do not waste time repeating the many undertakings Iraq has given about its responsibility in ensuring the safety and security of Iranian dissident refugees in Ashraf. Its government violently breached those in a brutal attack on defenceless residents on the 28th of July; residents who offered only passive resistance against thugs in security uniforms who attacked with chains, axes, poles and live ammunition, killing 11 and wounding 500.”
To suggestions that there was no evidence Lord Corbett said “He has had – as have others in the FCO – a DVD of those events. And the Embassy in Baghdad has had copies of the DVD because I gave it to someone in the FCO who said his colleague was going out there the next day.”
Quoting from his latest letter to Ivan Lewis at the FCO he read “We will not support Iraq dancing to Iran’s tune. The UK is part of the coalition still in Iraq and silence on the issue of proper respect for human rights and international law is no adequate response. Your silence at this looming outrage will shame our Government.”
Frustration about FCO inaction and seeming lack of interest by the British media has baffled many people including Lord Corbett. His response to FCO appeals to ‘trust Iraqi undertakings’ is scathing: “They are not worth the paper they are written on. While the (Iraqi) Minister for Human Rights is giving these assurances to our Embassy Staff, the Prime Minister is making it clear that come December 15th, whatever force is needed to remove people from Ashraf and to raze it to the ground, they are prepared to use.”
And the consequence of further non-intervention is something he is clear about.
“If this attack takes place there will be murder in the desert. The only real way to stop this massacre happening – and that’s what it’s going to be – we really must see a UN force of some kind stationed at Ashraf.
“We’ve got to do all we can to raise awareness of this so that people will know what is going on – but more importantly, so that the Iraqi Government knows that the world is watching and that if what they did in July is repeated, there’s going to be, once again, a huge question mark about why British troops, men and women, gave their lives to give a new chance for Iraq to build a society that’s free and democratic.”
The PMOI opposed both the Shah and the equally undemocratic fundamentalist clerical regime that replaced him. In the 1980s they were accused of orchestrating a bombing campaign against new Islamist leadership in which many senior officials were killed. As exiles the PMOI were welcomed by former Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, who was at war with Iran at the time. He funded and armed the PMOI's military wing, the National Liberation Army of Iran, which fought alongside Iraqi troops.
But in 2003, following the invasion of Iraq, the PMOI disarmed and, following an investigation by the UN in which every resident was individually interrogated, the people of Ashraf were duly accorded “protected person” status under Article 4 of Geneva Convention.

A US force was tasked with overseeing this, but its protection was withdrawn in January 2009 and six months later 36 Ashraf residents were detained by the Iraqi authorities after a violent assault on the camp. The attack was captured on video that showed Iraqi police and soldiers shooting and beating camp residents with clubs and chains. The film, shot by residents using mobile phones, recorded the violence that resulted in 11 deaths and many injuries. It also showed US troops looking on passively before driving away in their humvees.

The July assault provoked a worldwide protest and, in the UK, a 72-day hunger strike outside the American Embassy in Grosvenor Square supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury and multi faith leaders from across London.

Although it resulted in release of the Ashraf hostages the victory was short-lived. Pressure to isolate the residents continued.

Members of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom see the threatened transfer of the refugees to Murat al-Salman, near the Saudi border, as appeasement of the Iranian regime, the prelude to slaughter and the first step in exile or destruction of the group seen as a beacon of hope to dissenters in Teheran.
Former Home Secretary Baron David Waddington QC, a former Conservative MP, said “The Iranian regime continues to defy United Nations and world opinion as, hand-in-hand with the expression of dissent in the country . . . it carries on with its programme of uranium enrichment. How much longer can our government afford to tolerate this defiance which, if allowed to continue, will allow Iran and the mullah’s to become a nuclear power with weapons threatening the peace of the Middle East and far beyond?
“As to Ashraf; Britain and America have a special responsibility here and it is to restrain the Iraqi authorities from illegal action against the residents. There is no doubt that the people of Ashraf are entitled to protection under international law, as has recently been recognised by the National Court of Spain. What is clear is that if America and Britain do not act to bring home to Iraq its responsibilities under international law, they themselves risk having to accept responsibility in the court of public opinion for what may well turn out to be a terrible tragedy.”
“Already the people of Ashraf are being denied medical supplies and assistance – assistance even to those who suffered under the attack in July. Already there have been further cuts in the supplies of fuel, with tanker drivers attempting to get in being arrested and put in jail.”
Laila Jazayeri, spokeswoman for the National Council of Resistance, later issued a statement: “While the international community has been enraged by plans to forcibly displace Ashraf residents and Amnesty International has strongly denounced such an act, some international media have told the Iranian Resistance that the spokesman of the Iraqi government had told their correspondents based in Baghdad that the government had reached an agreement with the residents of Ashraf on their displacement, planned for December 15, and had obtained their consent. This claim is totally unfounded and untrue.

“It is only intended to deceive the public opinion.”



END

Thursday, 5 November 2009

Remember, remember . . . .

Photograph: Glyn Strong

Guy Fawkes for some, poppies for others. Remembrance Sunday approaches and the familiar blood-red blooms appear on the streets . . . . later tonight fireworks will illuminate the London sky. To the uninitiated it sounds like gunfire, but if you've heard the real thing it's a benign parody.


The man pictured above, on the left of the crowds, is a volunteer from Veterans Aid ( http://www.veterans-aid.net/ ) a Victoria-based homelessness charity that does exactly what it says on the tin. From 6.30am he and ex-Servicemen like him have been 'tin-rattling'. Or rather, they haven't. For the most part they stand quietly, waiting for people to approach them. Nigel (above) speaks Italian and is able to satisfy the curiosity of a visitor who asks what the poppies mean. He explains patiently and simply. She is young but nods and buys one.


An older man, wearing a Veterans badge, also stops to speak. He doesn't need to buy a poppy - but pauses to acknowledge a fellow veteran. Something unspoken passes btween them. They have never met before, but for that moment they share something. A recognition.

Many people simply pass by in a blur - heading for their offices, looking for hotels or taxis, ears glued to Blackberries or blocked by earphones that plug them into private worlds.

Many of the commuters who pass Nigel will go home this evening to bonfires celebrating a failed attempt to send a message to Parliament. Nigel, who suffers from Parkinson's Disease, will go home to his 'family'. They are ex-Servicemen men like him who live in VA's Limehouse hostel.

The military mantra 'man down' is something that veterans understand.

Nigel's story, like that of every former homeless veteran, is unique. This is it:

http://www.rewritetomorrow.eu.com/reflections/personal-stories/my-unwanted-friend/

Friday, 2 October 2009

Hungry for justice - dying to tell


Watch film on:
Lord Brian Cotter who described himself as 'dumfounded' at the lack of
action over Ashraf speaks to the Foreign Office from outside the US Embassy.
Picture and film: Glyn Strong

CAMP ASHRAF PROTEST – DAY 68

Dear Mr Obama . . .




Twenty hunger strikers outside the US Embassy in London’s Grosvenor Square will be joined by hundreds of supporters tonight (Saturday, 3rd October) between 6.00pm and 8.00pm. Some of those fasting have not eaten for 68 days and are seriously unwell.

Since the original 12 friends and relatives of those living in beleagured Camp Ashraf started their vigil many non-Iranians have joined them, for short or extended periods, including British barrister Margaret Owen and activist Leon Menzies Racionzer. Similar protests are taking place around the world.

Appeals by Amnesty, Reporters Without Borders, the Chartered Institute of Journalists, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carlile, Lord Cotter, Lord Clarke and many MPs and MEPs neither the British, nor the US governments have engaged with the protestors.

An open letter to Mr Obama, signed by hundreds of concerned supporters people and all hunger strikers, will be presented at the event this evening. There will also be a performance showing how the 36 hostages have been forcefully removed from prison by Iraqi security forces and taken to an unknown location in Baghdad. Many were injured in the original assault on Ashraf - all are weak. Fears are mounting that they will be tortured and deported to Iran.

On Tuesday, 29 September 2009 AFP reported: “Iraqi authorities have refused to allow 36 Iranian dissidents seized in a July raid to return to their base despite a court ruling they must be released, a judicial official said today.The members of the People's Mujahedeen, an exiled opposition group, were arrested by Iraqi police during a raid on Camp Ashraf, in Diyala province north of Baghdad, which left 11 camp residents dead. "I released them; I said that they should go back to Camp Ashraf," Judge Ali al-Timimi told AFP, referring to a decision he delivered on Sunday.

A judicial official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Iraqi authorities had refused to release the group because they considered them having illegally infiltrated Iraq. "It ... became clear that the allegations were unfounded from the start and were meant for covering up the crimes against humanity that took place in Ashraf," People's Mujahedeen spokesman Shahriar Kia said in an e-mailed statement. Earlier this month, US Ambassador Christopher Hill vowed to press the Iraqi government, which the Mujahedeen say answers to Tehran, to live up to assurances to treat the residents humanely and make sure they are not repatriated to Iran.

The group was founded in 1965 in opposition to the shah of Iran. It has subsequently fought to oust the clerical regime which took power in the 1979 Islamic revolution. The group set up Camp Ashraf in the 1980s - when former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was at war with Iran - as a base to operate against the Tehran government.”