در سپتامبر 2008 طی فراخوانی که در سایت بحران منتشر شد و از حمایت 593 فرهیخته، اندیشه ورز و فعال سیاسی سرنگونی طلب برخوردار شد، از صلیب سرخ خواسته شده بود که حق قانونی مجاهدین برای ماندگاری در اشرف را به نیروهای چند ملیتی گوشزد کند. مسئول میز خاورمیانه صلیب سرخ پس از دریافت ای میل و لیست 593 نفر، پاسخی مثبت اما ناکافی ارسال کرد. متن این دو نامه، همراه با لیست اسامی در سایت بحران آرشیو شده است.
http://www.irancrises.com/FarakhanSafheyeNakhost.php
پس از دریافت پاسخ ایشان (8 سپتامبر 2008) و همفکری با دوستان، نامه ای شخصی به مسئول میز خاورمیانه صلیب سرخ ارسال کردم (13 سپتامبر 2008) که متن انگلیسی آن در زیر آمده است (متن این نامه تاکنون علنی نشده بود). در این نامه به صلیب سرخ خاطر نشان کرده بودم که پاسخ ایشان کافی نبوده و از صلیب سرخ خواسته بودم که مشخصا اعلام کند که این «حق» مجاهدین است که محل سکونت خود در اشرف را انتخاب کنند. (کپی این نامه در همان روز به مجاهدین ارسال شد).
رادیو فردا (4 دی 1387) در گزارشی خبر داده که صلیب سرخ بالاخره اعلام کرده است «ما در فاصله سه ماه پیش تاکنون سه بار از اردوگاه اشرف بازدید داشته‌ایم و با ساکنان اردوگاه صحبت کرده‌ایم و نگرانی‌های آنها در مورد سرنوشت‌شان، در صورتی که از حمایت نیروهای یک دولت خارج شده و به دست نیروهای دولت دیگر سپرده شوند، را به مقام‌های مسئول منتقل کرده‌ایم. اصل حقوق مورد اشاره ما در بحث با مقام‌های عراقی هم "اصل عدم عودت" در حقوق بین‌الملل است که بر اساس آن هیچ دولتی حق ندارد چنانچه بیم آزار و بدرفتاری در کشورشان وجود دارد، افراد را اخراج، مجبور به بازگشت یا طرد کند. ما همچنان افراد ساکن در اردوگاه اشرف را تحت نظر داریم.» این سخنگو تأکید می کند «به تمام مقام‌های مسئول این پرونده، دولت‌های آمریکا و عراق، این نکته را متذکر شده‌ایم که آنها مسئول حفظ جان مجاهدین هستند.»
بی شک، آن فراخوان و نامه نگاری دلیل اصلی موضعگیری قاطع و روشن امروز صلیب سرخ نیست، عوامل دیگری نقش آفرینی کرده اند، از جمله تحصن هواداران مجاهدین در کشورهای مختلف، فشارهای دیپلماتیک مجاهدین، و برخورداری از تیم حقوقی قوی. اما یک نکته را هم نبایدنادیده گرفت: همبستگی 593 نفر انسان فرهیخته و غیر وابسته به مجاهدین، در دفاع از حقوق قانونی مجاهدین پیام مشخصی به صلیب سرخ می دهد.
نامه به خانم Béatrice Mégevand-Roggo در زیر دیده می شود.
شاد باشید
علی ناظر – 5 دی 1387
Ms. Béatrice Mégevand-Roggo
Head of Operations
Middle East and North Africa
Dr A Behrooz
Editors@ntlworld.com
13 September 2008
Dear Ms Béatrice Mégevand-Roggo
Please accept my apologies for taking your valuable time.
Further to your email, as I promised I have passed on your reply to the signatories.The response has so far been utter dismay, and disappointment. I think the response should be seen in the following context.
Initially, may I provide you with some background on myself and most of the signatories. We do not have any organisation affiliation with the Mojahedin, and the petition is simply a humanitarian reaction that underlines our serious concern on the Mojahedin in Ashraf. We could have sent this petition to many political and diplomatic bodies (UN, Heads of States, etc), but we thought the Red Cross had a more influential and predefined role. Amongst the signatories, as I had already mentioned in my previous email, are renowned intellectuals, writers, poets, and academics, who do not usually or officially express their concerns about the Mojahedin. They signed the petition, because they were quite concern.
The signatories’ concern stems out from the events that took place in the past 5 years in relation with Ashraf. Documentary evidence confirms that Ashraf, before the MNF-I attack on Iraq, declared its neutralities; yet they were one of the first targets who were bombed. Some of the residents were killed by the bombs of the MNF-I. Then, Ashraf voluntarily disarmed itself, and accepted protection by the Geneva Convention; yet they have been subject to several terrorist plots, since then. They were told that the international law will keep them secure and protected; yet the MNF-I unilaterally, and with little concern, negotiates Ashraf’s protection. Now, and to the dismay of the signatories, a noncommittal reply from the Red Cross is issued.
In the opinion of the signatories, your reply does not confirm that the MNF-I has a non-negotiable responsibility towards the Asharaf residents, nor does it declare that the Red Cross recognises that Ashraf’s residents are Protected Persons. In the view of the signatories your reply does not meet the basic request of the petition; that is, for the Red Cross to convey our serious concern to the MNF-I. I have received a substantial criticism highlighting the point that the Red Cross has taken somehow a weak and noncommittal stance, wrapped in general terms and nonspecific directives.
The signatories have reminded me that so far, the government of Iraq has not acknowledged the minimum rights of the residents of Ashraf. It has never affirmed its commitment to international law, international humanitarian law, the principle of non-refoulement to the lifting of the restrictions on, and encirclement of the residents of Camp Ashraf who, as political refugees, enjoy the protections of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and juridical security. It has been stressed to me that making statements about respecting the rights of those in Ashraf is one thing, upholding those commitments in practice is an entirely different exercise, especially when there is insufficient political and humanitarian demand.
I am therefore asked by the signatories to ask President Kellenberger to clarify whether His Excellency agrees with the fact that the Ashraf residents are Protected Persons? If so, are they protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention? If so, would the Red Cross assure the signatories that it would use all its might and channels to make sure the Ashraf residents will not be harmed, by stressing to the MNF-I that Camp Ashraf’s protection should continue as before? If His Excellency does not agree with these points, would he kindly clarify the reasons, and identify his solution to secure the lives of 3500 men and women against any possible terrorist treat?
I have been personally criticised for ending the petition after only three days. The signatories argue that if I had let it run longer and more people were informed, a larger number of people would have signed up, and therefore the impact might have been more positive. I do not agree with this. The matter is quite urgent, and the Red Cross should have been informed of our concern as soon as possible; beside the fact that the Red Cross is expected to play its role whether there is only a single letter, or a petition with 593 signatures, or 5930.
Please once more accept my apologies for taking your valuable time. I hope to receive His Excellency’s reply as soon as possible.
Yours respectfully
A Behrooz (Dr)
