The United States' Fight Against Terrorism; Its Challenges To Refugee Protection And The Refugee Regime: The Case Of The "Material Support Bar"

The United States'Fight Against Terrorism; its Challenges to Refugee Protection and the Refugee Regime:The case of the "Material Support Bar"The main theme of the research was to assess the negative impact of the U.S's fight against terrorism on refugee protection and the UNHCR as a refugee regime. The research hypothesizes that, if the U.S does not engaged in a coordinated effort with other international partners in the fight against terrorism and to have an internationally accepted definition of terrorism, their fight will continue to violate the rights of refugee and asylum seekers. The researcher employs the international relations'theory of'Regime'which has an institutional format and helps members to coordinate and cooperate and also control the behavior of members, be it states, organizations or institutions. The regime theory dictates the rules of engagement amongst members of a particular regime. In this case the UNHCR as a refugee regime.In terms of the methodology of this research, it primarily utilizes qualitative type of research approaches; and also looks at some amount of quantitative explanations on the research subject. It also engaged the social scientific approach of collecting qualitative data including descriptive and analytical account of events and activities of the research in question. The research further consulted quite a good number of other sources like; the Jilin University Libraries, inter-governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, international and regional organizations' archives and websites.The fundamental argument of this research is that, the United States" fight against terrorism is also a violation to the rights of refugees through its broad definition and implications of the word "terrorism"In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States government created laws and policies to bar admission of foreign terrorists into the country. However, they have defined 'terrorism'in such broad terms, that these definitions pose a threat to the protection of refugees and bona fide asylum seekers. The barring of foreigners who provided material support to terrorist organizations has prevented the admission of refugees and asylum seekers who are most times the very victims of these organizations. This has provoked global debate; and concerns have been raised regarding counter-terrorism exclusion laws and policies that affect access of refugees and asylum seekers to protection.The provision in law that has been most problematic in terms of refugee protection is the bar to admission of those providing material support to terrorist organizations. The Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA Patriot Act) and the REAL ID Act of 2005 significantly expanded the scope of that bar. These acts broadened the definition of terrorism-related activity and terrorist organizations, and included as a bar providing material support for humanitarian projects of groups that are named on the Secretary of State's list of designated terrorist organizations.When the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decided in October 2004 to apply the material support bar as defined in the USA Patriot Act, the State Department had already identified many refugees for resettlement, including Colombian refugees in Ecuador and elsewhere. Accordingly, DHS put on hold the resettlement of those Colombian refugees identified by the State Department who had been forced to provide money or goods to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) or other designated terrorist groups. When DHS placed all Colombian cases on hold, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the organization that refers many refugees for resettlement, determined that 70-80% of these refugees otherwise eligible would be subject to this new application of the material support bar. Due to the disruption the new U.S. policy caused to UNHCR's resettlement work. UNHCR stopped referring Colombian refugee cases to the U.S. Refugee Program. Essentially, the new DHS application of the material support bar virtually shut down the resettlement of Colombian refugees to the U.S. so many refugees have been denied access to the U.S as a result of the "Material Support Bar".For instance, during the civil war in Liberia, Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) rebels came into the home of a woman, shot and killed her father in front of her and then raped her numerously. The rebels then abducted the woman, held her hostage, and forced her to perform a variety of household tasks, such as cooking and laundry. After several weeks in captivity, the woman escaped and made her way to a camp where she was granted refugee status. During her resettlement adjudication, the Department of Homeland Security considered the tasks she had performed for the rebels, such as laundry, as "material support" to a terrorist organization. The woman was denied resettlement to the United States.In another instance, four members of a paramilitary in Columbia attacked the home of a young youth. He was kidnapped and forced to join a death march to a paramilitary encampment.During the march, the paramilitaries shot and killed many, and the youth was often forced to dig the graves of the dead, knowing that gravediggers were commonly shot in the back and left in the holes that they had just dug. Fortunately, with the help of his cousin, the youth escaped and was granted refugee status. He is barred from the U.S. resettlement program under the "material support" provision for digging graves for the paramilitary, a terrorist organization.The above examples are not exceptions but rather the increasing norm facing refugees worldwide. Thousands of refugees who have qualified for the U.S. resettlement program are being put on hold due to the expanded definition and overly-broad application of the material support bar. This bar has in effect labeled refugees, who were victims of rape, robbery, extortion, torture and mutilation, as terrorists. Material support has been interpreted to deny refugee protection to people forced against their will to pay "taxes" to armed rebel groups; individuals coerced to provide shelter to alleged terrorist groups often comprised of a small group of men; and those violently abducted and enslaved by warring factions that are not designated terrorist organizations.Ironically, for many of these refugees and asylees, the very circumstances that form the basis of their refugee or asylum claim, well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group are now grounds for inadmissibility to the United States. The delay on the part of the U.S government in addressing this issue has severely crippled the UNHCR resettlement programs thereby affecting the work of the regime.This is a clear violation of the Refugee Convention and its additional Protocol, which oblige States to protect refugees from refoulement unless there are reasonable grounds for believing they are dangerous to the security of the country of refuge. The Department of Homeland Security has issued a series of declarations that waived the material support bar in specific situations. These ad hoc waivers, however, have not adequately filled the protection gap created by the overly broad reach of the material support bar, and they have proved unwieldy in practice. As a result, the US law remains less protective than the Refugee Convention and Protocol requires. I therefore, see this action by the United States as turning its back against the 1951 Geneva Convention on the status of refugees and the 1967 additional protocol to which it's a signatory.ABSTRACT OF CHAPTERSCHAPTER ONE:INTRODUCTIONIn this introductory chapter, the researcher gives a thorough literature review on the background and statement of problem on the research topic; and also attempts to define and further analyse the complexities in the definition of terrorism.CHAPTER TWO:THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF REFUGEE PROTECTIONThis chapter clearly explains the international system of refugee protection and further defining the concepts of refugee and asylum and the refugee protection system which clearly illustrate the refugee protection system; thereby giving a historical review of UNHCR and its mandate. This chapter further outlines the norms of respect for human rights and highlights the importance of the international regime of refugee protection in international relations.CHAPTER THREE: MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISM; DEFINITION AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORYThis chapter contains the main focus of the research, is the core of the research as it deals with the research topic; "Material Support Bar", defining the material support bar and gives its legislative historical background. In this chapter the researcher use the case of Columbian refugees who are one of those many refugees who suffered or are suffering from this law passed by the U.S in their fight against terrorism. The researcher explains in this chapter the materials support in the Columbian context, and outlined the categories of material support given that denied them entrance into the United States for protection from their persecutors.CHAPTER FOUR: LEGAL PROBLEMS ARISING OUT OF THE MATERIAL SUPPORT BARThis chapter tries to analyze the legal problems arising from the Material Support Bar, and how this collides with refugee protections and U.S foreign policy. Highlights cases of refugee/asylum seekers who have been victimized by terrorists, are also made victims by the anti-terrorism laws of the United States, making them double victims.CHAPTER FIVE:FAILURES OF THE MATERIAL SUPPORT BARThis is the conclusive part of the work. The researcher addresses the research focus which is the negative effects of the "Material Support Bar" of US anti-terrorist laws on refugee/asylum protection by way of the sharp decline in refugee/asylum admission. This chapter also tries to make some recommendations as to how this issue could be looked at without victimizing the refugees who are already victims of situations which is not of their making.