Evidence of meeting #14 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 ashraf.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
That was mainly meant to restrain our members, not to restrain you, Colonel.
1:55 p.m.
Col Wesley Martin
I take total guilt, because I keep going on.
Moqtada al-Sadr informed his followers that Saddam would not live to see the light of a new year. He informed Maliki, “I want Saddam turned over to me tomorrow morning.” Maliki contacted the commanding general of Task Force 134, who asked him, “Why do you want him tomorrow? We already plan to execute him on the 10th of January.” “I want him tomorrow.” “Why? Show me how you have this set up in an organized manner.” “I want him tomorrow.” The Task Force 134 detention operations commander pushed back: “No. This is going to be a fiasco.” Our State Department weighed in, influenced his military leadership, and told him directly, “You will turn him over.” The commanding general then had no choice. He turned him over, and you remember the fiasco that became. The State Department immediately backed up, and let the commanding general take all the blame. Not one person in the State Department stepped forward and said “We were the ones who ordered it to happen.”
I see an identical situation happening with Camp Ashraf, as that country is going further down. With the exception of Kurdistan, which is actually becoming very productive—they have malls there, they're developing bridges, they're developing businesses—Iraq is going severely down further and further every day. Demonstrations in Tahrir Square are being brutally suppressed, and it just keeps on going. The people themselves, even the Shias in Najaf, Nasriye, and Basrah, are now saying it was actually better under Saddam.
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
No, I'm afraid not. We have to go to our next questioner.
Mr. Chisholm.
2 p.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Colonel. I certainly found your testimony very interesting.
Getting to the question of what gets done and doesn't get done in time, you've indicated that the concerns expressed seem to be falling on deaf ears in the United States. Would you give me some indication of what the options are if the U.S. is not going to listen and not going to act? Is there any opportunity of the UN being able to intervene, and is there anything that Canada can do to try to force this question?
2 p.m.
Col Wesley Martin
With the UN, there is. Tom Ridge has said it probably more than anybody else: we need to get blue helmets on the ground. I am more than willing to go with that operation.
As I mentioned, we need to get the UN even more engaged in trying to protect the people that UNHCR is trying to move. We need to break down Maliki's artificial walls on cooperating with him, which he hasn't done.
I've talked personally with Maryam Rajavi with this, and Italy has accepted some of the MeK members. If Canada would be willing to accept MeK members, to include, and I know you would include, some Canadian citizens in the MeK.... I remember one young lady over there, her name I've long forgotten, who was a Canadian citizen, as was her brother. Her brother came back home. If they would accept some of the members and do what can be done to make it clear and help push back the 31 December deadline.... Although as I've mentioned, I don't trust Maliki unless he's put under great pressure to even honour that deadline, let alone push it back.
I know you're out of the cycle of revising your terrorist list, but I would greatly encourage removing the MeK from the terrorist list in Canada. That would help. It could be used to say to the United States: the United Kingdom and the European Union have said they're not terrorists, and now your ally to the north has stated they're not terrorists. It would help force the issue.
2 p.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
You talked about the deadline of December 31, but are we not in fact looking at a deadline much closer than that if Obama's going to have a meeting on the 15th and given what happened in 2009 and 2011?
2 p.m.
Col Wesley Martin
Yes, sir, you're right.
When I was the anti-terrorism officer of Iraq, I used to have to sometimes examine the facts, look at the history as you've just pointed out, and also make some gut-feeling calls.
One day General Sanchez stopped me outside the office and asked, “What's going on?” I said, “Sir, Diwaniya is next”, and sure enough, they got hit. Then we went over what I was doing was to help try to do defences down there.
My gut feeling, based upon everything I am looking at, is Maliki is going to move before December 31 and close to December 15.
As pointed out here, and as Sheila Jackson pointed out yesterday, to make it clear that you will get to meet the President.... Also, by the way, this meeting that Joe Biden had over there, and then Joe Biden comes back and says great things, and he also says the Iranian influence is greatly exaggerated—no, it's not. It's underestimated.
If I may close, one of the greatest humanitarian warriors is no stranger to any of you. He wrote a very special piece in a letter. I think everybody has seen this, but if you don't mind, I can read it:
The threat to the residents of Camp Ashraf is real and it is imminent. Within over a month, these 3,400 unarmed citizens will face a potentially mortal crisis--unless the international community fulfills its own moral and legal obligations. The humanitarian crisis is avoidable and must be avoided at all costs.
2:05 p.m.
Col Wesley Martin
Sir, thank you.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
Thank you, Colonel.
With the permission of the committee, I'd like to ask a question of my own in relation to the technical question of the status of protected persons. I gather this is a status that is awarded under the Geneva Conventions. Is that correct?
2:05 p.m.
Col Wesley Martin
It was. Yes, sir.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
Who actually makes the decision to give protected person status? What party does that?
December 8th, 2011 / 2:05 p.m.
Col Wesley Martin
In this particular case it was done by Rumsfeld. What happened, as I know everybody is aware.... Normally in a situation like that, as soon as the military operations cease, the State Department would go in and start building a government. Colin Powell did have a very extensive plan for building Iraq, but Rumsfeld, through his influence to President Bush, refused to allow that control to go to the State Department. As a result, Berman was sent over, and all the decisions were handled for a long time through the Department of Defense.
In this particular case it ended up being made by Rumsfeld. Normally, I believe it would be done by the State Department.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
So when we talk about the protected person status being revoked, that has actually happened in a formal way, has it--or has it not happened?
2:05 p.m.
Col Wesley Martin
Are you asking if it happened formally?
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
2:05 p.m.
Col Wesley Martin
It was.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
2:05 p.m.
Col Wesley Martin
That would have been by the State Department at that time, and let me leave it at that. It would have been done by the State Department.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
Okay, I don't need a precise answer. That gives me just some familiarity with an issue with which I wasn't familiar.
We very much appreciate your testimony, Colonel. It's been a real honour having you here, very illuminating. I think we're all very appreciative of that. Thanks very much.
2:05 p.m.
Col Wesley Martin
Sir, I appreciate it.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
I do have, for the rest of the committee, one item of business relating to our hearings next week. In order to accommodate some scheduling issues, we will now be hearing from the folks from the foreign affairs department on the issue of Camp Ashraf on Tuesday and we will be hearing from the witnesses regarding the Democratic Republic of Congo on Monday. So that shift will occur. Timing doesn't change, just who we're hearing from on which day. That's the only item.
Professor Cotler.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chairman, I think a notice of motion was distributed regarding North Korea.
We heard testimony. I think people here are knowledgeable about it. I am bringing it up now because the Council for Human Rights in North Korea is meeting in Toronto tomorrow evening and was very much hoping it would be able to announce that this committee had adopted these motions.
They were previously brought forward by Mr. Hiebert, and then the matter lapsed.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
Perhaps what we'll do is allow these to be distributed. Then we'll see if there is a consensus on their adoption.
We're still in session and now dealing with a different item. May I ask everybody to just take a peek at these?
