July, 12 2010, 02:35pm EDT
Iran/Iraq: Iranian Attacks Should Not Target Iraqi Civilians
Villagers Allege Artillery Shelling, Attacks on Livestock Intended to Clear Border Area
NEW YORK
Iran needs to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians at risk of serious harm from artillery bombardment and other military operations in an area that includes dozens of Kurdish villages inside northern Iraq, Human Rights Watch said today.
The Iranian attacks, directed against the Iranian Kurdish armed group Party for Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), intensified in late May and have led to the displacement of more than 500 families, wounded an unknown number of villagers, and killed a teenage girl. Iraqi villagers also told Human Rights Watch, which visited the area in late June, that Iranian border guards have targeted their livestock and sometimes fired at the villagers themselves.
"Iran should take all feasible precautions to spare civilians from artillery and other attacks," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Firing artillery shells into populated areas, especially where there are no military targets, and targeting livestock are serious violations of the laws of war."
Since June 3, 2010, about 500 families have fled their border villages to crowded tent camps elsewhere in Erbil and Sulaimaniya provinces, joining about 250 families who had fled Iranian shelling in previous months. Aid organizations and local municipalities have struggled to meet the displaced families' basic needs. The recent attacks also led an unknown number of other Kurdish civilians to flee elsewhere throughout the countryside and to surrounding towns.
The affected areas lie in the Qandil Mountains, along the eastern borders of Erbil and Sulaimaniya provinces, in the region administered by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). To the west, along the Iraqi-Turkish border, Turkish forces continue to attack Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) forces, although these attacks have not yet had the same impact on populated Iraqi Kurdish areas, aid agencies report. PJAK, a group formed in 2004, is affiliated with the PKK.
Human Rights Watch visited the Choman, Soran, Raniya and Pishdar districts between June 18 and June 27 and interviewed more than 50 displaced villagers, local government officials, and Iraqi soldiers. In all of the border areas Human Rights Watch visited, there were extensive patches of ground with small craters and twisted shrapnel inside villages and close to homes, as well as a pattern of damage to dwellings and crops that was consistent with artillery bombardment. Human Rights Watch also viewed video shot on villagers' mobile phones showing the moments after shelling, with smoke rising from craters alongside damaged tents and dying livestock. Villagers, government officials, and Iraqi security forces who Human Rights Watch interviewed were adamant that PJAK forces had never been in these areas and that there were no other military targets in the vicinity at any point before or during the shelling.
"We know these mountains," a KRG military officer who commands a military outpost in a mountainous area of Choman District told Human Rights Watch. "We don't have PJAK fighters in these villages. We only have government forces here. ... Iran is attacking places that do not have guerrillas."
Karwan Shareef, mayor of the Haji Omaran sub-district, told Human Rights Watch that the people living in the nearby areas being shelled are farmers and shepherds.
"I have seen no guerrilla forces in these areas," Shareef said. "PJAK are very far from the places that Iran has shelled. An artillery shell even hit only 250 meters from my office."
A local freelance journalist from the same area, who often reports on both the armed groups, said, "I interview PJAK all the time. I have to go further up in the mountains to do this. Plus, they are guerrillas - they know how to hide from the Iranians. The farmers do not."
Human Rights Watch did not see any evidence of PJAK activity in and around the communities it visited.
Family members, residents, and local officials told Human Rights Watch that a shell killed 14-year-old Basoz Jabar as she was playing outside in Wenza, a village in Choman district, on June 2. Residents of the village showed Human Rights Watch metal shell fragments collected from the site of the attack.
The girl's best friend, Shanaz Qadr, 13, described the shelling. The bombardment was deafeningly loud and frightening, she and other neighbors said, sending residents running for cover. The two girls separated and Qadr hid behind a large rock: "I cried because I was afraid as the shelling came closer. But when I heard the crying of my neighbors, I forgot everything. 'Oh my Basoz,' I heard them say. I couldn't stand it anymore. When the shelling died down, we saw the bloody body of Basoz." Since the attack, only a few families have remained in the village, in an effort to save their crops.
Aid organizations working in the affected areas had no numbers for injured civilians, but more than a dozen villagers told Human Rights Watch of residents who were wounded by the shelling and taken to stay with family members in surrounding areas.
The timing of the recent attacks has been particularly devastating for farmers since the attacks coincided with the short planting season. Villagers in several districts said this is the third year in a row in which Iranian shelling forced farmers to leave during crucial times for planting and tending crops.
While Iranian officials have said little about military activity across the border, especially artillery bombardments, they have stated that Iran's military actions are aimed at stopping attacks across the Iranian border carried out by PJAK. Iran's ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, told the Iranian Mehr News Agency on June 9 that Iran was strictly controlling the security of its borders, and he rejected claims that Iranian troops crossed Iraq's border illegally.
Villagers and local officials told Human Rights Watch that in their view Iran intended to force the villagers off the land, effectively creating an area along the Iraqi side of the border without inhabitants. Locals said there was a pattern of shells striking increasingly close to their gardens and homes until they felt they had to leave for fear of being wounded or killed.
"They are doing this so we will leave," said a man in the village of Kani Spi. "We are just families, growing food to make money, but the Iranians do not want us here."
Farmers close to the border reported that since June, soldiers on the Iranian side intentionally killed the villagers' livestock with machine gun fire. In some cases, they said, Iranian troops fired on them as well if they climbed high enough on the hilltops to be seen. The farmers said they did not carry any weapons and were dressed in civilian clothing.
In one farmland area in the Haji Omaran sub-district, about two kilometers from the border, Dishad Baqer, a farmer in his 30s, said that all the residents fled after repeated shelling. He explained that it had been quiet for a few days, so almost 40 of the 60 residents had quietly come back to work to salvage their fields of sunflowers, tomatoes, and cucumbers. Iranian border guards "shot ten horses near here, two days ago," Baqer said. "We stay close, because if you walk up this hill, right now or anytime, they will shoot at you."
On June 22, the day he spoke with Human Rights Watch, Baqer said that they had been lucky for the previous few days because there had been no shelling at all.
"We are ready to run if it starts again," he said.
Villagers repeatedly warned Human Rights Watch to keep away from the tops of hills that were in view of the Iranian border troops on the other side. Another farmer in the same village said, "They will shoot at anything that moves, whether it's a person or an animal ... I think they are sending a message for us to leave our home."
Deliberately attacking civilians and civilian property, such as shooting at farmers who are not actively taking part in the hostilities and targeting livestock, are serious violations of international humanitarian law.
Human Rights Watch also called on Iraqi authorities to ensure that essential aid promised by the government reaches those displaced from their homes. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other aid agencies told Human Rights Watch that more than 750 families (about 4,740 people) have been displaced by Iranian shelling, including about 250 from before the current campaign that began in late May.
The largest of the camps is Doli Shahidan, nine kilometers north of Sangasar. More than 2,000 people fled there from 21 villages, according to the UN refugee agency office in Sulaimaniya. While the local district government has started to provide potable water to the camp, displaced villagers rely on the refugee agency, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Iraqi Red Crescent, and the International Organization for Migration for tents, plastic sheets, food items, first aid kits, cooking stoves, blankets, water filters, and other items.
According to aid agencies and local farmers, since early 2008, civilians by the thousands have been intermittently displaced in the region by the Iranian shelling - returning and leaving as the shelling stops and starts and making it difficult to assess numbers of displaced.
Iraqi government officials said that the central government's Ministry of Displacement and Immigration has in the past month compensated some of those displaced with a lump sum payment of 1 million Iraqi dinars (about US$850) per family. The KRG, which is distributing the payments, has not announced clear eligibility guidelines. While a few people told Human Rights Watch that they had received the compensation, most said they had not.
At the Jarawa refugee camp, in Raniya district, a village elder, Bapir Haji, said none of the families in the camp ever received compensation because of what he characterized as nepotism within the KRG.
"We haven't received anything because we aren't in the right families," he said.
According to locals, neither of the armed groups being hunted by Iran and Turkey receive assistance from the civilians in the shelled areas, although the locals say that segments of the local Kurdish population may sympathize with the rebel fighters.
The umbrella organization that includes both PJAK and the PKK, known as the Kurdistan Democratic Confederation (KCK), acknowledged to Human Rights Watch that fighters are based in parts of the Qandil mountains of northern Iraq and move across the border to conduct attacks inside Iran and Turkey. Regarding the areas being shelled by Iran inside Iraq, a spokesman, Ahmed Deniz, told Human Rights Watch, "PJAK forces are just not there.... our forces do not operate in these civilian areas."
South of the Haji Omaran border crossing, Human Rights Watch observed what an officer of the KRG's security forces, the peshmerga, identified as an Iranian military outpost. The officer said that the outpost had been constructed two weeks earlier by Iranian forces, and was three kilometers inside Iraq. Local officials later confirmed that the outpost was in Iraqi territory. About the shelling, the officer shook his head and remarked, "We can only just watch it."
What is known as the principle of distinction, which requires parties to an armed conflict to distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians, is central to international humanitarian law, which regulates the conduct of hostilities. Customary international law requires that operations may be directed only against combatants and other military objectives; civilians and civilian objects may not be the target of attack. Deliberate, indiscriminate, or disproportionate attacks against civilians and civilian objects are prohibited.
Attacks are indiscriminate when they are not directed at a specific military objective or employ a method or means of warfare that cannot be directed at a military objective or whose effects cannot be limited. A disproportionate attack is one in which the expected incidental loss of civilian life and damage to civilian objects would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Until recently, Iranian shelling elicited little comment from either the Iraqi central government or the regional government. In a June 22 news conference, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki accused Iran and Turkey of violating Iraq's territory and said that the Iraqi government had sent letters of protest to both ambassadors. Deputy Foreign Minister Labeed Abbawi delivered those letters.
"We have expressed to the Iranians that we are against the actions of any [armed] groups operating near the borders, but these problems will not be solved by unilateral military actions in our borders by another country," Abbawi told Human Rights Watch. "We are asking Iran and Turkey to stop the shelling and bombing immediately. There have been no direct responses from Iran, except that we were told that our concerns were exaggerated. This is the traditional response."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular