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). 
 
¶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