David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to talk tonight about the current situation in Iraq, which seems to have dropped off our—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this a point of order, Senator Barnett?

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Acting Deputy President. At the end of my speech, I was seeking leave to table the letter that I referred to throughout my speech, together with the chronology.

The Acting Deputy President:

I do not think that is a point of order, Senator Barnett, and you interrupted another senator while he was speaking. If, at the end of Senator Feeney’s contribution, you wish to seek leave to do that, I will consider the matter then.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The current situation in Iraq seems to have dropped off our radar lately as we have become more focused on the situation in Afghanistan. It is true that Afghanistan is now the main focus of our military and political activities, and rightly so. But Australia, as one of the powers belonging to the coalition of the willing that took part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, retains a responsibility for what happens in that country. We cannot walk away from our responsibility for what is happening there.

In 2003, the then Labor opposition opposed the decision of the Howard government to take part in the invasion of Iraq, partly because we did not think it was right for the US and its allies to act unilaterally and without a specific mandate from the UN Security Council. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who was then shadow minister for foreign affairs, made the point repeatedly that, if Australia took part in the invasion, we as an occupying power would become in part responsible for the future of Iraq. Now that Labor are in government, we are withdrawing our troops from Iraq, as we said we would. But we are not abandoning Iraq to its fate. Having been part of the invasion and occupation, we cannot now wash our hands of the consequences of our past actions. We have an ongoing, shared responsibility to assist the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to rebuild their country. We have an extensive aid and assistance program in Iraq, and I fully support that continuing engagement.

One aspect of the situation in Iraq which has had little publicity in Australia is the position of the Iranian exile or refugee community in Iraq. During Saddam Hussein’s period, thousands of Iranian dissidents of various kinds were allowed to settle in Iraq. These included members of the People’s Mujaheddin Organisation, also known as the People’s Mujaheddin of Iran or the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq. The People’s Mujaheddin of Iran are a very significant component of the Paris based National Council of Resistance of Iran. Saddam Hussein armed and trained about 25,000 People’s Mujaheddin of Iran members to launch attacks into Iran, although I am advised that their military efforts had very little effect. They also carried out terrorist bombings and assassinations in Iran during that period. Since the fall of Saddam’s regime, the People’s Mujaheddin of Iran no longer receive arms or training and no longer conduct armed operations. The National Council of Resistance of Iran says that it renounced violence in 2001. Although the United States and some other countries still designate the People’s Mujaheddin of Iran as a terrorist organisation, this year the European Union removed it from the EU terrorist list.

The majority of the population of Iraq are Shiah Muslims, like the Iranians, and the elected government which now rules Iraq is, naturally enough, dominated by Shiah. Many of them have close ties and connections to Iran. Indeed, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki lived in Tehran for eight years and is regarded as close to certain powerful figures in the Iranian regime. This is quite predictable, since the links between the Iraqi Shiah politicians and the Iranian regime were well known prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. One of the consequences of our invasion of Iraq, which was predicted at the time, has been the conversion of Iraq to a close ally and friend of Iran. At a time when Iran is under the control of the extremist President Ahmadinejad, is developing nuclear weapons and is threatening to use them against Israel, converting Iraq from an anti-Iranian position to a pro-Iranian position may not seem like the best of ideas. That was not, of course, the objective of the 2003 invasion, but it was, perhaps, a predictable consequence of it.

All of this has had dire consequences for the Iranian exile community in Iraq, which is believed to number around 30,000 persons. The Iraqi government has been keen to stop Iraq being used as a base for the launch of armed attacks or terrorist incidents against Iran, and no one could object to that. But Iraq has also been clamping down on non-violent political activity by Iranian exiles, and that might have happened at the request of the Iranian regime in Tehran. Now the US is withdrawing its forces from Iraq and handing over responsibility for security to Iraqi troops and police. This has meant that Iranian refugee camps near the Iranian border, which have up until now been under the protection of US forces, are losing that protection. The best known of these camps is Camp Ashraf, near the Iraqi town of Khalis, about 60 kilometres north of Baghdad. Ashraf was set up by Saddam’s regime as a base for the People’s Mujaheddin of Iran, but, after the invasion in 2003, the camp was taken over by US forces and the Iranian exile community there was disarmed.

The 3,500 residents of Ashraf are classed by the International Committee of the Red Cross as protected persons under the Geneva convention. On 1 January this year control of Camp Ashraf was formally transferred from the US forces to the Iraqi government. In July, the Iraqis announced that they wanted to establish a police station in the camp. The Iranian residents objected to this, saying that this was a violation of their status as internationally protected persons and was a means of spying on them in the interests of the Iranian regime.

Let me quote Kim Gamel of Associated Press on what happened at Camp Ashraf on 28 July:

The women formed a human chain while the men chanted, confronting Iraqi troops moving into their compound. Gunfire rang out, and the soldiers waded in with batons, wooden bats and automatic weapons. By the end, officials said, eleven Iranian exiles were dead—shot, beaten or run over by military vehicles. Throughout the confrontation, American soldiers who once protected the Iranian opposition group stood by. According to US officials, they had no legal authority to intervene.

There is video footage available on the internet which appears to show Iraqi army humvees deliberately running down protesters. As well as the 11 killed, many were wounded, and many more were taken into Iraqi custody and have not been heard from since.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran says Iraqi forces opened fire with machine guns on unarmed residents of the camp, fired pepper gas and beat the refugees while demolishing the walls and fences around the camp. Now, I am aware that accounts of these kinds by exile organisations cannot always be taken at face value. But in this case there is independent verification from reputable news organisations. The Iraqi government itself acknowledges that there was violent conflict at Ashraf on 28 July.

Raymond Tanter, president of the Washington based Iran Policy Committee and a member of the National Security Council during the Reagan administration, says that the timing of the raid on Camp Ashraf was political. Baghdad, he says, ‘wanted to establish its independence from the United States and was motivated to show that independence by cracking down on Ashraf.’ The raid coincided with a visit to Iraq by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Tanter also said:

If you want to know how independent the government of Iraq is from the Islamic Republic of Iran, watch what happens to the people of Ashraf.

This situation presents a dilemma for the US and its allies during the 2003 invasion, including Australia. We made a deliberate decision to invade Iraq, overthrow its government and take charge of the country, without a UN Security Council mandate to do so. That makes us responsible, at least in part, for what happens there as a consequence of our previous commitment.

Iraq now has a government which is closely connected to Tehran, and the Iranian exile community in Iraq is paying the price for that connection. We share responsibility for this situation with the US and other members of the so-called coalition of the willing. The US and Australia should therefore be pressing the Iraqi government—a government to which we have given $126 million so far in aid of various kinds—to cease violence against the Iranian refugees at Camp Ashraf, to investigate those Iraqi officials who were responsible for the deaths and injuries on 28 July, and to account for those who were detained. We should also be pressing for guarantees that the protected status of the people at Ashraf and other refugee centres like it in Iraq will be respected.