The Common Ills: Camp Ashraf, Martin Kobler and other things

Friday, June 07, 2013

Camp Ashraf, Martin Kobler and other things

Martin Kobler is the special representative in Iraq of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. He heads UNAMI and has been in the post since August 2011. He replaced Ad Melkert who had served in the post since July 2009 (who replaced Staffan de Mistura . . .).

That's Kobler. Camp Ashraf? Approximately 3,400 people were at Camp Ashraf when the US invaded Iraq in 2003. They were Iranian dissidents who were given asylum by Saddam Hussein decades ago. The US government authorized the US military to negotiate with the residents. The US military was able to get the residents to agree to disarm and they became protected persons under Geneva and under international law.

When Bully Boy Bush was in office, they were protected. I don't care for the man and he certainly didn't care for the Geneva conventions, but they were protected.

Since Barack Obama was sworn in as US president, Nouri has ordered three attacks on Camp Ashraf resulting in multiple deaths. Let's recap. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." February 9, 2013, they were attacked again with as many as 10 dead and fifty injured.

These massacres did not happen under Bully Boy Bush. It's also worth mentioning -- if only because members of England's Parliament have repeatedly noted it -- that two of the massacres took place while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was visiting.

Alan Gray (The Blaze) has an article about how some United Kingdom MPs are calling for Ban Ki-moon to fire Martin Kobler. Three e-mails note the article so we should probably weigh in before more show up.

I don't know if the UK MPs are serious or not.

One, you can call for a firing because you're frustrated, you can call for a firing to apply pressure to a situation or you can call for it because you really want it.

If it's the third reason, I'd argue the MPs should be a little more careful.

Kobler does not 'disfavor' the MEK (Ashraf residents). He just overly favors Nouri al-Maliki. That is done over and over in every scenario. With protesters, with other politicians, every single issue, Kobler favors Nouri.

Do they think they're going to get someone better than Kobler if Ban Ki-moon heeds their wishes and fires Kobler?

I don't see how.

Kobler's the strongest person that's been in that role. As much as his fawning over Nouri disgusts me, he fawns far less than his predecessors. (Although it could be pointed out that when his predecessors had the job, Nouri's crimes were less well known.)

My point here is are we confusing the person with the position?

Kobler redefined "truth" when he started swearing that Camp Liberty was approved for refugees. (No, it only met the standards -- the UN standards -- for a temporary housing.) (Camp Liberty is where the Ashraf refugees were forced to move when no one would stand up to Nouri.)

I can understand the MPs and Ashraf supporters being enraged over that.

Although I'm not really sure what else he was supposed to do. Kobler has no military. The US government had already gone along with Nouri's relocation plan. So if Kobler said 'it's not up to standard,' what would the next step have been? Probably forced relocation and there would have been no one to protect the Ashraf residents. It would have been a daily slaughter until the last survivors were moved.

I'm not Martin Kobler. Were I him, I would've said, "This isn't up to standard and we're not endorsing this move." And Ban Ki-moon probably would have replaced me right then.

I'm highly bothered by Kobler's refusal to stick up for Iraq's LGBT community when they were being targeted, especially since the 2012 targeting came as Ban Ki-moon was making all these pronouncements about universal rights and LGBTs. I'm still offended by his United Nations Security Council briefings for 2012 with regards to that targeting.

I don't think Kobler's perfect.

But I'm also aware of the UN people that preceeded him. Thus far, he has yet to share the podium with someone who blames Iraqi women for people getting sick with cholera.

That happened under another Special Representative.

I wish Kobler was the voice of the world and of the United Nations. I wish he did come out for peace and champion the oppressed. That's not happening and I'm not pretending it is. But I'm also aware that it didn't happen with any of the people who came before him either.

Of all the people who've held the position, I think he's done the best job so far.

I think some of the criticism he's faced has to do with the position and not the person or how the person is doing the work.

That's my opinion and you're free to disagree.

In terms of making demands, I think the UK MPs are completely misguided.

If they really think Kobler's doing an awful job and that anyone would be better, then they should call for him to be fired.

But there should be a louder call for the US government to work harder on resettling the Ashraf residents.

I really thought that by now, the US would have done something.

And to be clear, the US doesn't have to wait for them all to be transported out.

All the US is obligated to do is to provide a path for them to another country (other than Iran). If an Ashraf resident doesn't want to relocate after that? They're on their own.

This cannot be a ten year process. The US needs to find countries willing to take the refugees, explain to the refugees that these are the options and make clear that after those options are gone, the refugees are on their own.

The US should not be in the position of protecting Ashraf residents for the next 50 years just because they don't want to leave. They need to provide for the residents to leave and those who want it can take it.

Those who don't? They're probably going to die. Nouri's made it very clear how he feels about them. Those that manage to live through an attack will probably be handed over to Iran.

That's just how it is.

There is a debt of safety owed to the residents because they are 'protected persons.' But that status cannot be used to stay in Iraq. It can be used to find alternative locations to live.

I think it need to be made very clear: These are your choices, you go to ____ and resettle or you stay here and you face Nouri's forces who will kill or arrest you.

And Nouri knows the world's not watching. He got away with the April 23rd massacre -- when Nouri's federal forces stormed a sit-in and killed adults and children. Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk) announced 50 activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault. UNICEF informed the world that 8 of the dead were children and twelve more children were left injured. The world largely shrugged.

He knows he could get away with attacking and killing the Ashraf refugees.

Which is why pressure needs to be put on the US government to find countries that will take them. They'd all 3500 love to stay together? Well there are a lot of things people would love, you can't have everything. The most important thing is your safety. If the residents can't grasp that, then the US needs to be able to say, "We did everything we could."

In the end the Ashraf refugees have to be willing to help themselves. If they're living with some fantasy that, come 2024, they'll still be in Iraq and happy, they're deluding themselves and those delusions might cost them their lives.

Think of Iraq as a burning building for the MEK. A fire fighter can say, "Hey, we're going out this way." But if a group of people in a burning building refuse to leave as the building is falling down, the fire fighter is not obligated to commit suicide with the residents who are screaming, "I'm not leaving!"

Repeating, if the UK MPs feel Kobler should be fired, they should pursue that but they better also be putting pressure on the US to find countries to take in the refugees because time is running out.

The following community sites -- plus Susan's On the Edge, Ms. magazine's blog, the Pacifica Evening News, PRI, Cindy Sheehan, Antiwar.com, The Diane Rehm Show, Adam Kokesh and the House Veterans Affairs Committee -- updated yesterday and today: