The London Times
October 10, 2008

Iraqi who risked all for Britain is left to his fate in Basra
Deborah Haynes in Baghdad

An interpreter employed by the Army in Basra for five years has been refused a place on a scheme to resettle Iraqi employees in Britain because he is deemed to be a security risk.

Mohammed Motlag, 47, had been told that he and his family could be among the first to be relocated to Britain under a fast-track programme to offer asylum to current Army employees. He has learnt, however, that his application for asylum has been rejected for “security reasons”.

Mr Motlag, whose five-year-old son was kidnapped because of his work for the British, said: “It was very shameful to learn that the British did not accept me. My wife had to be taken to hospital because she fainted upon hearing the news.

“I cried. I have liked Britain since I was a child. I grew up reading Shake-speare and used to think, ‘What a civili-sation’.”

The resettlement scheme was introduced by David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, last October after a campaign in The Times about the plight of Iraqi interpreters who had been killed or intimidated by militias because of their work.Officials have from the outset attempted to restrict its scope, however, to limit the numbers of those able to benefit while doing just enough to “respond to perceptions” that the Government had a moral obligation to its local staff.

Mr Motlag, who has two children, learnt of his fate when he was summoned to the Labour Support Unit, which handles the military’s Iraqi workers. He was told: “Mohammed, we are very sorry but the British Government does not accept you for asylum in the United Kingdom.” The decision to deny the application for asylum has surprised Mr Motlag’s employers in Basra, who appear to have nothing but praise for him.

In a letter of reference written in April 2004 by Brigadier Julian Free, then a lieutenant-colonel, who went on to become one of Britain’s top commanders in Basra, Mr Motlag is said to have “proved to be extremely reliable and hard working, putting in many extra hours and accompanying troops on house searches and operations, which other local employees would not attend”.

A British officer who has worked with Mr Motlag told The Times: “He is absolutely fantastic. He has been an important servant and done an important service to our country.”

Mr Motlag, like many interpreters, has paid dearly for his devoted service and has first-hand experience of the tactics used by Shia militants to frighten local people who work for the British Army.

His house was attacked by armed men one night when his wife and two young children were there. In another incident, his five-year-old son was kidnapped and later released.

Mr Motlag was part of an Iraqi delegation that visited Leicester two years ago as part of a project to forge relations with al-Zubayr, the second city of Basra province.

Sandra Rieger, Leicester City Council’s international development officer, said that the interpreter, whose official title is cultural adviser, accompanied the mayor of al-Zubayrand and the head of the local council on the five-day trip in October 2006.

“He also assisted Zubayr City Council in implementing some of the recommendations in the report,” she said. Mr Motlag is in the process of drafting a constitution for al-Zubayr using elements of Leicester’s constitution.

The Home Office declined to comment on individual cases when asked why Mr Motlag’s application had been rejected.

It is understood, however, that the screening process to establish whether a person would pose a threat in Britain is more rigorous than the checks carried out by British soldiers on the ground when hiring someone to work for them, for example, in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The Home Office said: “We carefully consider all applications in line with immigration rules and take in to account all relevant circumstances.”

More than 70 people, comprising locally employed staff and their families, have been resettled in Britain since the assistance scheme was announced, a spokesman added.

In another twist to the interpreter saga, a British civilian source in Basra said that the Foreign Office and Department for International Development had not been hiring any more Iraqi employees because it had been made clear to them that this would be frowned upon by London.

“There was never an official edict on not engaging new folk, just a clear steer that hiring recommendations would not be supported because of the potential liabilities and the risks for the people themselves,” the source said.

A military source speaking to The Times last month also indicated that this was the case. This was denied repeatedly, however, by the Ministry of Defence.

Shortly after The Times had requested clarification of the situation the same military source said: “I don’t think there is an absolute ban . . . It’s just our applications ‘weren’t supported’. Your questions might have had an impact because we’ve just been allowed to take on three people officially that we have been hiring unofficially [through the Iraqis] for the past three months.”

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence insisted that there had never been a “recruitment freeze”. He said that when vacancies arose, the military tried to give precedence to former staff who had been made redundant as the British mission evolved.

In addition, he said, Basra’s economy was picking up, creating other opportunities for qualified English speakers, which made it harder to recruit interpreters.