Evidence of meeting #12 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was iraqi.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Mukasey, is it true that in 2010 the U.S. gave the residents of the camp a written grant of protection until they could relocate safely somewhere else? What has become of that promise? Do you know anything about that?
1:30 p.m.
As an Individual
There was a letter written by a U.S. general guaranteeing that they would be treated as protected persons under the Geneva Conventions. They were each given identification cards issued by the United States.
What has become of the guarantee is that we have turned over control of security in that area to Iraq. The U.S. government now takes the view or expresses the view that this is an internal Iraqi matter and that it's a question of how Iraq exercises its sovereignty.
I think it's shameful, but that's what people are saying.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Why does Iraq want Camp Ashraf closed by the end of the year? Could you be more specific on that?
1:30 p.m.
As an Individual
The end of the year is an entirely arbitrary date. I think they believe that if the date were extended, then it would be extended infinitely. They are being pressured by the Iranians to get those people out of there. So they have decided that's the date. They've drawn the proverbial line in the sand and that has become the date.
There is no outside event that has suggested, or propelled, or in any way recommended that date. It's simply been chosen arbitrarily by the Iraqi government.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I understand that about one-third of Camp Ashraf residents want to return to Iran, where they have been promised amnesty. Is that correct?
1:30 p.m.
As an Individual
I don't know that to be the case. I don't know, if I were a resident of Ashraf, that I would be willing to rely on the promise of the Iranian government. That is something, it seems to me, to be sorted out by people interviewing them under circumstances in which they're free to talk and express their correct views.
It's one thing for them to be interviewed by Iraqi government officials, or by others in the presence of Iraqi government officials, and there's a question of how freely they might express themselves. I think they have to be questioned in a setting that allows them to be candid about where they really want to go.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
No, but we're going to have another round of questions, Mr. Sweet.
Professor Cotler, please.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You basically summed up the situation effectively by saying, one, that we need to recognize the crisis that exists, and, two, that we need to act. You will find that, in this committee, we recognize not only the crisis but also the imminence of the crisis and the necessity to act.
You have identified four actions or initiatives that can be taken. One would be the extension of this arbitrary deadline. The second would be to place a protective force in Camp Ashraf. The third would be to process the Ashraf residents for resettlement, and the fourth would be getting them off the terrorist list.
I just might add parenthetically that they are also on the list as a terrorist entity here in Canada. I would like to think that we are sufficiently independent that we would make our own judgment to take them off the list, and not to have to await the United States making such a judgment in that regard.
Having prefaced these remarks, my question more specifically is how can we go about best implementing each of those four actions, given that, for example, on the extension of the deadline, Iraq shows no disposition to want to do so at this point?
In terms of putting a protective force in place, are you suggesting that this be done by way of a UN Security Council resolution, or that this could be done unilaterally by the U.S. pursuant to whatever moral and legal obligations it may have in that regard, or by a combination of EU, NATO, and the like? How does one process the resettlement if there may be a risk, as the UNHCR said, as to whether they can, in fact, undertake such resettlement—though they did do some of that in September?
1:35 p.m.
As an Individual
The answer to the question of how you put a force in place is yes to all of your alternatives. I think that all should be considered, and all should be acted on.
Insofar as getting them delisted, I would hope, as you said, that the Canadian government would make its own evaluation and, as the U.K. did and the EU did, determine that the designation is not warranted—and it wouldn't hurt to whisper in the ear of my own government that it is the case.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Do you believe that the United States has a continuing moral or, I would even say, juridical obligation to the residents of Camp Ashraf? If they do have this legal obligation, on what basis does such an obligation exist, and how do you believe the United States can and should—I don't want to use the word “will”, because you have already addressed that—act in order to implement such an obligation, alone, or in concert with others?
1:35 p.m.
As an Individual
It is a question, candidly, of there being national and international public pressure, because there is no forum, as you know, in which a government can be forced to do something it doesn't want to do. But it can respond to the pressure, both moral and political, of other governments.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I must say that I find it somewhat troubling—not only surprising, but troubling—given the distinguished personages in the United States who are involved in a security-related framework, who have knowledge of what's going on in Camp Ashraf, who had senior positions in the American government, who were former heads of Homeland Security, former commanders of the Ashraf area, former heads of the FBI, and you, as an Attorney General, that the government will not respond to such a repository of experience and expertise on what has to be done.
1:35 p.m.
As an Individual
Candidly, I'm at a loss, as well, which is why other and I are doing everything we can to talk to whoever will listen. There are some looming disasters that can't be prevented—earthquakes, floods, and the like—but there are some disasters that can be prevented, and this is one of them. We're trying to do everything we can to prevent it.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
How would one best put a protective force in place? I don't see how Iraq is going to retreat from its undertaking to abide by this arbitrary deadline. It seems a protection force is one of the most urgent things that needs to be put in place. If that were done, we could seek to implement the other options you addressed.
1:40 p.m.
As an Individual
The United States still has a military presence in Iraq and could be instrumental in putting such a force in place, whether by direct participation or through the use of its support facilities. My own belief—and this is easy for me to say, because I'm not directly involved in making the decisions—is that even if a relatively small force of UN blue helmets were put in place, the Iraqi government would feel reluctant to undertake any kind of forcible action.
I can't speak for the Iranians—that's a whole different thing entirely. As was pointed out before, this is relatively close to the border, but I don't think the Iraqis would take on the entire international community by assaulting a UN force.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
So we need a UN Security Council resolution to put such a UN force in place?
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Do you think such a resolution would run the risk of a veto, or do you think that enough international mobilization could be brought to bear? It wouldn't require many members, and the imminence of a potential disaster ought to be compelling enough for the UN Security Council to act if the U.S., among others, would share that sense of commitment in crisis.
1:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
We'll go next to Mr. Sweet, but I want to ask a question if I might, Mr. Mukasey.
A United Nations force would effectively be serving as a combination of human shield and witness to anything that might be attempted. Would that be a fair assessment?
