Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Dec. 1st, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I call to order this 12th hearing of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on December 1st, 2011.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the situation in Camp Ashraf in Iraq.

We have before us as witness today Michael Mukasey. I can truly say in this case there is no need for an introduction, and given that we are already running behind, I won't offer one.

It is a great honour to have you here, sir. We appreciate the fact you're able to take time out of what must be a very busy schedule. I'll simply turn things over to you to give us your thoughts. Afterwards we'll begin a round of questions.

[Michael B. Mukasey, As an Individual]

First, I'm grateful to the committee and the subcommittee for hearing me on this issue.

Obviously, I don't know what proceedings you've had with respect to Ashraf up until now, but I will begin by stating that there are approximately 3,400 women and men in Camp Ashraf. They are Iranians, members of an organization called MEK, Mujahideen-e-Khalq, who are opposed to the current Iranian regime and have opposed it consistently. MEK favours a democratic, secular, non-nuclear Iran, and their members have been persecuted, killed, and imprisoned under the current regime.

They are living in a camp in Iraq called Ashraf. They said they fled Iran. They are living in that camp, and they are now under a deadline of December 31 imposed by the Iraqi government, acting quite obviously at the behest of the Government of Iran. That deadline is to either send them back to Iran, relocate them to other countries, or relocate them elsewhere in Iraq.

Although they have been designated by the UNHCR as asylum seekers, the Iraqi government has interfered with the ability of officials to get into the camp and interview them individually to find out their eligibility for refugee status, and so they are in a kind of limbo.

The camp has been attacked twice by Iraqi troops within the last two years, once in 2009 and once in April of this year. They shot people in cold blood. There is a tape made from various telephone camera transmissions from within the camp. It's a shocking scene. It shows Iraqi troops shooting these folks, women and men, in cold blood, running them down with military vehicles. They are unarmed. They had weapons to defend themselves, but they voluntarily surrendered them in 2003 when the coalition invaded Iraq. They received a written guarantee from a U.S. general acting on behalf of the coalition that they would be treated as protected persons under the Geneva Conventions. They were then screened individually by representatives of the FBI and the Justice Department of the United States, both of which found that none of them had any terrorist background or leanings.

Although the EU had them on a list of terrorist organizations for a while, it has taken them off. The United Kingdom has done the same. Unfortunately, though, the United States continues to list them as a terrorist organization. That listing has been challenged in court. A United States court has told the State Department that the public record does not contain enough evidence to consider them a terrorist organization. Nevertheless, the State Department hasn't acted to remove them from their list.

What is urgent now is that they are facing this December 31 deadline, after which the Iraqi government has made it clear that they will do again what they did back in 2009 and in April of this year, which is to go in there with troops and kill people wholesale. Either that or they will redistribute them within Iraq to locations where they can be disposed of out of sight of the international community.

I and others who have come to recognize this problem have taken up their cause. We have been trying to get governments everywhere to recognize the crisis and to act. Sympathizers include many former officials of the United States government, such as Louis Freeh, the former head of the FBI; Tom Ridge, the first Secretary of Homeland Security and the former Governor of Pennsylvania; and two former directors of the CIA.

The December 31 deadline is entirely arbitrary. It is certainly not based on anything the residents of Ashraf have done or intend to do, but has simply been imposed by the Iraqi government.

I can stop or pause here if you like and simply take questions, which might help flesh out the situation. It will allow me to not talk about things you already know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

That might be a very good idea.

I very much appreciate your cooperation on that matter. We have had some very verbose witnesses at this committee. As a rule, the less they have to say, the longer they take to say it; and the more they have to say, the less time they require.

We'll have a round of questions. I estimate we can get away with seven minutes for each question and answer, as long as we police it tightly.

We will begin with the government side and Mr. Hiebert, please.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Mukasey, for providing some testimony about this situation.

I'm slowly becoming more and more aware of the history behind this, but I'd like you to summarize for us why this issue has occurred. I just stepped into the room when you were talking about the persecution of the people at Camp Ashraf. They were gunned down and driven down.

What's the animosity behind this situation? I'm sure that will go a long way toward helping us address how to resolve it in the future. I'd also be interested in knowing what we as a government or a country can do to assist in resolving this problem.

[Michael B. Mukasey]

The animosity underlying it is traceable entirely to the Iranian government. It has increasingly pressured the al-Maliki government to dispose of these people who are, in essence, a bone in their throat. They've been there for a while. They call attention to themselves. They call attention to the depredations of the Iranian government.

The Iranian government has quite openly pressured the Iraqi government. Various Iraqi officials have travelled to Tehran. There are communications between the Iraqi government and the Iranians that have been documented, indicating that the Iranian government wants the presence of these people ended. That's really the source of the problem.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Is the solution negotiating with Iraq to extend the length of time they're allowed to stay in the camp? Is it redistribution through the United Nations?

[Michael B. Mukasey]

It's all of the above. I think the first order of business is to extend the deadline. There is no reason for the deadline, other than a decision by the Iraqi government that it's the deadline. Second is for United Nations blue helmets to be in place in Ashraf so that the Iraqi government doesn't go in there again, as they did on two prior occasions. Third is to process these people in an orderly fashion for resettlement in other countries.

I should tell you that part of my list of things to do includes what my own country has to do, which is to get them off the list of foreign terrorist organizations. That would help resettle some of them here in the United States.

But certainly, delay and defending them are the first orders of business.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Why are they listed as a terrorist organization?

[Michael B. Mukasey]

They were listed initially as a terrorist organization back in the 1990s, essentially as a sop to the Iranian government in the belief that it would help the U.S. government curry favour with the Iranians. They had taken violent action against the Shah's government back in the seventies. The Clinton administration first put them on the list really as a bargaining ploy to engage the Iranian government.

The administration in which I served kept them on the list--and this is according to Frances Townsend, who was the President's national security advisor--out of fear that if they were taken off, the Iranians would start sending IEDs into Iraq to kill U.S. troops. Of course, they started doing that anyway, so that strategy didn't work. But that really is the story of their being on the list initially and staying on the list.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

If that's the case, then there's no real basis at this point for keeping them on the list. From what we can see, our government, your government, and other governments are not at the present time trying to curry favour with Iran. In fact, we're increasing sanctions.

Is there any other reason you can think of that this continued listing would persist, or does trying to appease the Iranians sum it up?

[Michael B. Mukasey]

I think that pretty well sums it up. A U.S. court told the State Department that it had examined the reasons the State Department have given in litigation on the issue and found them inadequate. That happened a year and a half ago. They told the State Department to reconsider or get them off the list. So far, the State Department hasn't done anything.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Is the Iraqi government still subject to the influence of Iran? We've seen a liberation occur in the nation over the last number of years—but of course they are neighbours. So to what degree can we try to influence that relationship? We don't have the proximity that Iraq has to Iran, and perhaps even the trade that Iraq has with Iran. What leverage do we have?

[Michael B. Mukasey]

Well, you have access, as does the United States, to international organizations, including the United Nations and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to pressure the Iraqis, even to put the matter before the Security Council if necessary so as to interpose an armed force and prevent any further carnage.

The Maliki government, I would think, is subject to pressure from the United States, and I would hope that my own government would act in a way that's consistent with my remarks here.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Do you have any reason to believe they will act in that regard?

[Michael B. Mukasey]

The only reason I have to believe so is that numerous members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, as well as many former officials of both Republican and Democratic administrations, have lined up and urged them to do so. With that much attention being drawn to the issue, I'm at least moderately hopeful.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

What kind of extension would be needed to properly resettle the people in the camp right now? Extending it three months probably wouldn't be enough. Do we need the year? Do we need more than a year?

[Michael B. Mukasey]

I think we need to extend it for a year, at a minimum, and then start the process. That will tell us how quickly they can be processed and interviewed. But if the Iraqis impede the process, then any extension is going to be insufficient.

You need an extension. You need to start the process of interviewing them, considering them for resettlement in other countries. When we see how that process goes, we will then become aware of how long it's going to take.

But the Iraqis have not let that happen up until now.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

That was going to be my next question: why hasn't the resettlement process been initiated thus far? You're saying that Iraq has prevented it.

[Michael B. Mukasey]

Yes. They've interfered with the ability of people who would conduct these interviews to get into the camp and do it.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

All right. So you're saying they don't want these people to be resettled; they want to eliminate them, at the request of the Iranian government. They're preventing—

[Michael B. Mukasey]

They don't want them to be resettled in other countries. They want them either to be sent back to Iran, or resettled around Iraq in other locations such that they are out of sight and can be dealt with in the summary fashion they were dealt with back in April and in 2009.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Basically there are two death sentences they're considering for these individuals. They don't want them to continue speaking out through other avenues in other parts of the world.

[Michael B. Mukasey]

Correct, I couldn't have put it better.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Marston, please.