The Parliamentary Campaign in Defence of Ashraf stressed that on February 29, Secretary Clinton expressed her deep concerns over the safety and security of Ashraf residents at a House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing.
The IPCDA wrote to Secretary Clinton: “Consequent to these remarks, we were expecting to witness practical steps by the US administration towards safeguarding minimum humanitarian needs and human rights of the residents of Camp Liberty, where, despite all the shortages and limitations, two groups of 400 people of Ashraf, in order to prove their goodwill, accepted to move there.
“But unfortunately none of the minimum demands of the residents of Camp Liberty have been realized and the residents there are facing numerous difficulties for providing even their most basic needs including access to sufficient water.”
The IPCDA also expressed its outrage at some remarks by an anonymous US official who instead of holding the Government of Iraq responsible for reneging its commitments, blamed the victims for the shortcomings at Camp Liberty.
That official also attacked ‘dozens of top ex-national security, intelligence, and foreign policy officials, and military commanders of the past four US Administrations’, who – in a unique act of bipartisanship – have stood up to defend the rights of the residents of Camp Ashraf and the delisting of the MEK.
The IPCDA added that these senior former US officials and dignitaries “…all agree that this commitment places a legal, a moral and a political responsibility on the US…, a position that we also firmly hold.”
The IPCDA believes the timing of these allegations is very alarming as the accusations surfaced only after the Court of Appeals – DC Circuit accepted to consider the MEK’s petition for a Writ of Mandamus for the deliberate 20 months delay and stonewalling of the State Department, and the amicus brief by former senior US national security and intelligence officials and military commanders.
The IPCDA pointed out: “Experience has proven that slur campaign against the principal Iranian opposition movement has its roots in a despicable appeasement policy in the West and a tendency of pinning hopes in negotiations with Tehran.
“At a time that the clerical regime’s adventurous drive to acquire a nuclear bomb is a real challenge to the civilized world, these inhumane accusations are against the highest interests of the West in general, and of the US in particular.”
It added: “As allies of the US, we find this despicable propaganda campaign against the MEK and American dignitaries a great disservice to the US and our efforts to guarantee the rights of Ashraf and Liberty residents.”
International Parliamentary Campaign in Defence of Ashraf , 15 March 2012
