U.S. Student Group Providing Supplies to Syrian Underground Networks

Day by day, the situation in Syria is becoming increasingly dire. As Syrians continue to be wounded by government and rebel forces, the lack of medical supplies is very apparent. While in country ad-hoc efforts are underway to funnel what the Syrian government labels as contraband - blood bags, syringes, and medicine - student groups in the U.S. are working to supply these underground networks in the Middle Eastern country.

Two engineering students, Saad Rehman and Mohammed Kemal, at the University of Maryland have been assisting in a drive to collect medical supplies headed for Syria. They are members of Muslims Without Borders (MWB), the first student-based relief agency and organization. The group was founded at George Mason University in 2010, and was one of the first groups to enter Libya after the 2011 Libyan civil war broke out. MWB organized a major awareness campaign, Stand for Syria Week, at the University of Maryland College Park campus at the end of March as part of a larger effort to collect antibiotics, surgical items, medical equipment and devices, ointments and gloves, skin and wound care items, and various hygiene products.

Rehman, who is originally from Pakistan, joined MWB in February 2011, and now heads the organization’s chapter in College Park. His mother’s work as a graphic designer for Mission USA inspired him to search for a career that would allow him to help children. Once he entered college, Rehman decided that he could reach more people by becoming a civil engineer. He joined MWB because he liked the idea of using youth to move past faith to help communities around the world. “The objective is not to end anything, but to help people realize what needs to be done.”

MWB’s ability to collect a substantial amount of medical supplies may prove to be noteworthy. During a prior food donation drive Rehman’s MWB chapter collected more than 2,000lbs of food. The immediacy of the need to get medical supplies into Syria could spur a greater collection effort. “Doctors operate but don’t have basic tools or anesthetic,” Rehman recounts, “people are completely conscious during surgery.” Learning about the additional pain Syrians must go through while receiving treatment has motivated Rehman, who argues that the conflict allows him to appreciate what he has and encourages him to do much more.

According to Rehman MWB has many connections with non-profits. It receives logistics support from people on the ground in Syria, to whom MWB sends its containers of collected supplies. The organization runs a chain process, which includes collection efforts and distribution. The medical supplies MWB collects are sent to Tampa, Florida and then make their way into Syria with the help of MWB’s leader, Sufi Khan.

“Sufi Khan has a strong relationship with the team,” Rehman notes, “He creates a family environment.” That environment also attracted Mohammed Kemal to join MWB’s relief efforts in the fall of 2011. Kemal was 2 years old when he left Ethiopia for the U.S. after his family won an Electronic Diversity visa lottery. Kemal originally wanted to study architecture, but switched to structural civil engineering upon learning of the bleak job field that awaited him after graduation. The shared interested in civil engineering has led Kemal to view Rehman as a mentor.

Kemal quickly became involved in MWB, as was elected as the chapter’s Student Government Association liaison on the College Park campus. He played a significant role by securing funds for MWB’s Stand for Syria Week, in addition to assisting in the collection effort for medical supplies. “I love what [MWB] stands for,” he exclaimed, “I want to help people.” Kemal believes MWB is playing a significant role.

MWB’s medical equipment provisions could not have come at a better time after Syrian rebels gained access to material like weapons and ammunition as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other gulf states have begun pouring millions of dollars into the country each month. As the U.S coordinates Gulf states’ efforts to provide “non-lethal assistance” to the Syrian opposition, groups such as Muslims Without Borders are sending over-the-counter and prescription drugs. Kemal proudly asserts. “Someone from MWB is going to go to Syria…we need to help them out.”

Op-Ed: U.S. officials turn blind eye, support a terror organization

By: Mila Johns, Researcher at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START).

Imagine that Hamas supporters hosted a lavish holiday reception in the Rayburn Senate building. Imagine that members of Congress not only attended this event, but some even spoke on behalf of the terrorist group. Imagine that Hamas also ran ads during the Republican presidential debates, on all of the major news networks, advocating for its removal from the United States’ list of terrorist organizations. Imagine the public outcry that would ensue if these events were to actually happen.

Yet If you replace ‘Hamas’ with the ‘Mujahehin-e Khalq’, that is exactly what has occurred during the past month. The Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), a cult-like Iranian dissident organization currently dedicated to the overthrow of the government of Iran, has been classified by United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) for more than 25 years.  According to the Global Terrorism Database, the MEK is responsible for 90 unambiguous terrorist attacks between 1972 and 2001, including the assassination of seven American military advisors to the Shah. The group was based in Iraq and supported by Saddam Hussein from the early 1980s onward and briefly engaged in armed conflict with coalition forces during 2003’s Operation Iraqi Freedom.  More recently, the MEK has been linked to the assassinations of civilian nuclear scientists in Iran. Despite these facts, the United States has deployed military resources to protect the MEK base in Iraq and allowed its advocates in America to operate openly, without consequence.

The MEK has been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization since the creation of the FTO list in 1997. Some contend that the initial decision to place the MEK on the FTO list was intended as an olive branch to Iran’s then newly elected and reformist president, Mohammad Khatami. While this charge is perhaps not without justification, the fact remains that the group is designated as a terrorist organization under United States law and has been repeatedly affirmed as such by annual State Department reviews.  The FTO designation has a variety of legal ramifications, not the least of which is the prohibition on the provision of material support. To date, the government has turned a blind eye to the activities of MEK supporters, allowing them to host parties in Senate office buildings and pay senior U.S. officials to speak at the group’s events, despite these clear violations of federal law. If there is a legitimate case for removing MEK from the FTO list (which many would argue there is not), so be it, but until they have been delisted, the legal strictures remain in force.

This inaction, seemingly driven by the maxim that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’, undermines both the domestic and international legitimacy of the FTO designation by creating the perception that the FTO list is based on the shifting sands of alliances rather than a group’s illicit behavior.  Significantly, the government’s refusal to enforce its own laws regarding the MEK also subverts America’s ability to exercise persuasive power with other nations and any claim to moral leadership in the fight against terrorism by leaving the United States vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy. The U.S. cannot realistically expect other nations to accept its designation of terrorist organizations or to curtail active or passive support for those organizations when it suits their national interests if the U.S. is unwilling to be bound by its own designation.

Finally, this tacit support of the MEK further complicates the already fraught relations between the United States and Iran. In 1981, the MEK carried out a series of bombings that killed scores of top Iranian government officials, including the president and prime minister, and seriously injured Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s current Supreme Leader. Imagine if a group responsible for the assassination of an American president and vice president were allowed into the halls of Iran’s parliament. That the MEK and its supporters are permitted to operate within the U.S., publicly lobbying Congress, is thus an understandable source of considerable consternation to Tehran.

The MEK has been described as a policy conundrum for the U.S. government, but in reality the group presents a much graver challenge. The United States must decide if it will abide by its own laws and help reinforce international norms condemning the use of terrorist organizations as a policy tool, or if it will continue to jeopardize its legitimacy as the international leader in the struggle against terrorism.

Mila Johns is a researcher at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). She is an expert in Middle Eastern Studies, specializing in Iranian affairs. She holds a Masters in International Affairs from American University. She can be reached at majohns@start.umd.edu.

Nice Guys Finish Last: Brazil's Obstacles to Achieving World Power Recognition

A recent Council of Foreign Relation's (CFR) report contends that "Brazil matters not just regionally but globally." It encompasses the world's fifth largest land mass, and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) and other economic forecasters noted that Brazil overtook the UK to become the world's sixth largest economy. It is also the world's tenth largest consumer of energy and the third largest in the Western Hemisphere. The country's cities are experiencing a growing middle class, and attracting workers from Europe and the United States. Most recently, The Atlantic's Global Economic Power Index ranked the country's financial center, Sao Paulo, as the world's 15th Most Economically Powerful City.

Yet, despite Brazil's regional standing, growing economic clout, and continuous proclamations that Brazil is a great power, the country remainsoutside the Great Powers club. Even President Rousseff's upcoming trip to the White House April will not be considered a "state visit," stripping Brazil of even some degree of symbolic importance. Brazil has not gone to war for almost 200 years; it participates in peace keeping operations, and adheres to many international security treaties, such as the Nonproliferation Treaty. Overall, it is a well-behaved country with a fast-growing economy and lots of soft power. Is it Brazil's relatively disengaged and low-profile nature that prevents it from playing with the Big Boys? Is it the country's location in a less volatile geopolitical position that keeps it from sharing the standing Turkey has? Must it restart its parallel nuclear program to gain the trade deals and recognition India and Pakistan have?

Apart from former President Lula's attempt to play a role in engaging Iran in its nuclear program issues, Brazilian leaders have long been champions of national sovereignty and rarely get involved in substantial international political issues. Though, Lula's foray in the international diplomacy field may have set the course for a more involved Brazil. Many speculated that Rousseff would follow in Lula's shoes, and for the most part she has. However Rosseff, a long-time advocate for human rights, has created some distance between Brazil and Iran because of the latter's human rights record. For a minute, one would have thought Rousseff's background may have changed her country's usual laissez-faire attitude. Just last month Brazilian foreign minister Antonio Patriota expressed support for the Arab League's involvement in Syria. Yet, when it came down to voting for a UN Resolution on the issue, Brazil abstained.

Brazil's refusal to take a stance on controversial issues is a tactic for the country to secure economic relations with a couple of its largest trading partners: China and Iran. The country works the middle of the aisle in order to appease all parties and make friends with everyone. This may be part of Brazil's nature and its attempt to promote itself as an international mediator, and to secure a seat on the United Nations' Security Council. Brazil's fear of being seen as a lackey of the United States may also feed into this stance. But maybe it's Brazil's Eu sou seu amigo (I am your friend) stance that proves nice guys finish last, and prevents its ascent to the Big Boys club.

Brazil Preserving its Global Power Image

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has just concluded his tour of select Latin American countries. Before Ahmadinejad embarked on his trip it was already noted that he would not be visiting the region’s main powerhouses, such as Mexico, Argentina or Colombia. It was also noteworthy that Ahmadinejad would not be making a stop in Brazil, whose former president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, attempted to broker a tri-party nuclear fuel deal with Turkey in 2010. Despite former and existing trade relations between Brazil and Iran that include financing food exports; exporting beef, sugar and soybeans; and signing cooperation agreements in agriculture, biofuels and technology sectors, Iran continues to strengthen its ties with hard-lined supporting countries in the region like Venezuela while Brazil works on upholding its standing as an emerging, if not already, global power.

Brazil is an adamant supporter of Article IV of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which provides for the inalienable right of all parties to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination. Though it eventually became a signatory to the treaty after decades of debate, Brazil views the NPT as a discriminatory treaty. This view and the country’s desire to demonstrate its political capacity in important international issues, especially in regards to supporting emerging countries, contributed to Lula’s decision to develop the nuclear fuel swap deal with Turkey and Iran. The passing of the Russian and Chinese backed UN sanctions led to the deal’s failure, and as some believe, to tarnishing Lula’s legendary image as an international political icon. Ahmadinejad’s decision to skip Brazil on his Latin American tour may save Brazil from unnecessary criticism, and allow the country to solidify its global standing ahead of the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympics.

The selection of Brazil as host to these two major international events already demonstrates the country’s incredible soft-power. However, the country’s desire to strengthen its strategic alliance with Argentina, become an exporter of military technology, and develop nuclear submarines is fitting to its quest for a larger international standing and increasing its hard power. Brazil has greatly invested in its science and technology sectors, which has contributed to its ranking as a world leader in research on tropical medicine, bioenergy and plant biology. Though Brazil’s Energy Minister Edison Lobao stated last year that the country will expand its nuclear energy output by building five additional nuclear reactors, Brazil relies mostly on oil and hydroelectricity for its energy needs. As Brazil continues to diversify its energy sector, the future of its nuclear industry remains to be seen. Will the rate of its biodiversity and bioenergy research outpace the development of its nuclear energy industry? How will this affect Brazil’s future role in the international nuclear arena?

(January 13, 2012)

Nuclear Build Up in Latin America

Nuclear Responsibility

With the fall of Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in January and the stepping down of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in February the protest movements in the Middle East may lead Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to be forced from his 40+ years of rule in Libya. Much as the Arab Spring has been associated with Prague Spring of 1968, there is a spread of nuclear activities taking place now just as there were during the Cold War. In light of the recent nuclear crisis in Japan a number of countries have returned to the nuclear debate table, including those in Latin America.

Given that Chile, a country with a 4,000 mile coastline, experienced an 8.8 magnitude earthquake in February 2010, and that it was a 9.0 magnitude earthquake that caused a tsunami to severely damage the four reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, it’s no surprise that the Chilean population is questioning the risks of building a nuclear power plant. Yet, despite the country’s vulnerability to natural disasters on March 18 it signed a nuclear agreement with the United States. This is in addition to a similar agreement it signed with France three weeks earlier. Neither of the accords lays out plans for the construction of nuclear reactors. Rather, these agreements mark the first step towards the development of a nuclear program.

In addition to Chile, Venezuela seeks to develop a nuclear power program, and both Brazil and Argentina have advanced nuclear power programs. Under the military regime Brazil concluded a nuclear agreement with West Germany in June 1975, after which it constructed a parallel indigenous, secret nuclear program with the aim of developing nuclear weapons. The program has been dismantled since the 1990s, but Brazil’s aspirations for major power status remain. In 1971 Henry Kissinger noted that Brazil could play a “special role” in the Western Hemisphere. He added to this in 1976 when in Brazil he stated that “Brazil’s diplomats speak for a nation of greatness – a people taking their place in the front rank of nations, a country of continental proportions…a nation now playing a role in the world commensurate with its great history and its even greater promise.” It’s no secret that Brazil is an important actor in the international community. Nor is it a secret that Venezuela seeks to create a role for itself in Latin America as Brazil’s darker twin brother. President Hugo Chavez and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev signed a nuclear power deal in October 2010. Though Chavez declared that the nuclear program was cancelled in response to Japan’s nuclear emergency, it won’t be long before he starts singing a new tune.

The extension of nuclear cooperation is often based on the recipient country’s relationship with the nuclear state and its behavior in the international community. Should there not be other requirements taken into consideration, such as a country’s susceptibility to natural disasters or its ambition to play a major role in the international community? Obama’s trip to Latin America is an opportunity for him to outline his doctrine for the region. As he attempts to engage the countries in the region as equals, he should also attempt to break down the nuclear haves and have-nots issue and emphasize the need for greater nuclear verification and corresponding safety regulations, structures, and institutions.