Oral question asked in the House of Lords, by Lord Waddington (Conservative). It was answered on Wednesday, 26 November 2008.

Iraq: Ashraf City

Question: My Lords, the Minister referred to the responsibility of the United States but surely Britain, by virtue of its membership of the multinational force, will be as much in breach of international law as America if the protection of Ashraf City is handed over to Iraq without any real expectation that the rights of the inhabitants will be respected and that the Iraqi Government will not return them to Iran. Surely that must be the legal position. I return to the point made by my noble friend Lord Eden. In the light of the directive issued by the Iraqi Government on 17 June, it is surely very odd to take at face value present assurances by the Iraqi Government that these people will not be expelled, because the directive to which I referred calls for their expulsion.

Answer: My Lords, on the second point, the United States absolutely shares the noble Lord’s concern, which is why it has pressed the Iraqi Government to ensure that undertakings to look after this group are in place. I think that they are satisfied that that is the case. As to the UK’s legal responsibility, it is our view that the MEK/PMOI specifically chose American forces to surrender to. Secondly, the proclamation from the multinational commander at the time in 2004 that confirmed camp resident status as being ““treated as protected persons”” was clearly made on behalf of the United States alone.

Secondary information

Type: Oral question
Reference: 705 c1438
Session: 2007-08
Oral question type: Supplementary
Chamber / Committee: House of Lords chamber
Subjects: Armed forces Deployment Iraq Protection Peacekeeping operations Iran Mujahedin-e Khalq
Link: View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk