World conflict and contemporary international tensions

Global Response to Refugees & Terrorists

Global response to refugees and terrorists

The September 11 bombings of the World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York City, USA in 2001 brought into fore critical issues that have not been pro-actively discussed by the nations of the world, be they allies or in conflict with each other. New alliances were once again formed, and the most prominent partnership forged against the terrorist group Al-Qaeda is between the U.S. And Britain. Almost immediately after the attacks, Middle Eastern nations have also responded by forming alliances with each other, either with the Al-Qaeda group or generally, against the offensive attack that the U.S. government had instigated against Afghanistan, and for the larger part, against Iraq (allegedly identified as harboring Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda group, and in possession of weapons of mass destruction, or WMDs).

These series of events have brought about more than just a renewed debate on the issue of terrorism; it has also sparked new debates that question the admissibility of refugees seeking asylum in other countries, which are, more often than not, enemy state/nation of a refugee's native country. Popular media have demonstrated the blurring lines separating a refugee from a terrorist, and this belief has been supported by scholarly studies, which reviewed the changes in policy implemented by different governments and international political organizations/bodies. This gray area surrounding refugees and terrorists is the result of insufficiently defined definitions relating to terrorism and seeking asylum, especially when an individual seeking asylum is identified, in terms of race, ethnicity, or nationality, as an 'enemy' based on this profile information.

Indeed, this almost dissimilar treatment between terrorists and refugees has been echoed in Aiken's (2001) analysis of Canadian immigration laws. In the author's review of Canadian foreign policy when it comes to accepting refugees and providing them with asylum, she found out that "[t]he Immigration Act accords the same treatment to the mastermind of a hijacking and the person who has raised money in Canada to support an orphanage in her war-ravaged homeland" (55). This result of Aiken's analysis stemmed from the problematic conceptualization of the definition of 'terrorism.' Like UN international laws against terrorism, the lack of clear definition identifying terrorism and terrorists and other innocent individuals makes Canada's Immigration Law not only mutually exclusive, but also unfairly defined and does not favor and in fact, causes detriment, against 'aliens' sincerely seeking and non-maliciously seeking asylum.