Scholars highlight that terrorism definitions vary widely but commonly involve politically motivated violence targeting civilians to instill fear among the populace. The highly politicized nature of these definitions leads to divergent interpretations, credibility problems, and increased tensions.
Thorough research reveals that Western powers have used the term “terrorism” for political gains rather than making genuine efforts to combat the scourge. A notable example occurred in 2020 when US President Donald Trump linked the removal of Sudan from the list of state sponsors of terrorism to Khartoum’s establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel. Most recently, the removal of Syrian leader Al Jolani from the terrorist list is vindication of interest- based definitions of terrorism, rather than objective ones.
Let us unravel these contradictions further. The United States once supported the Taliban against the Soviet Union, aligning with its containment policy. Yet later, during the "war on terror," it labeled the same Taliban as terrorists. Even today, after regaining control, the Taliban is currently not on the US terrorist list, highlighting how political judgments override objective assessments.
Selective Labeling of Terrorist Groups
Western countries, particularly the US and EU, often designate militant groups as "terrorist" based on geopolitical alignment rather than objective criteria. For instance, Palestinian groups like Hamas or Hezbollah are universally condemned as terrorists, while far-right Ukrainian militias such as the Azov Battalion, despite neo-Nazi ties, have received Western military and political support due to their alignment against Russia. Similarly, Kurdish militias like the YPG are backed by the US against ISIS, even as Turkey labels them terrorists because of their PKK links.
Moreover, Western nations condemn non-state terrorism but conveniently overlook state terrorism by their allies, such as Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen or Israel’s targeting of civilians in Gaza.
Legal and Political Contradictions
Some groups blacklisted by the UN are also designated by the West, but others—such as the anti-Iranian group MEK—were once listed as terrorists before being delisted for political reasons. Likewise, the West has historically supported armed groups when convenient, such as the Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s and Syrian rebels in the 2010s, while labeling similar groups as terrorists when they oppose Western interests.
Media and Narrative Influence
The Western media further fuels this double standard. Attacks by Islamist extremists receive global attention, while white supremacist terrorism, such as the Christchurch or Anders Breivik attacks, is often framed as isolated incidents. Terrorism is repeatedly portrayed as a Middle Eastern or Muslim phenomenon, overlooking historical Western violence, such as the IRA in Northern Ireland. At the same time, extrajudicial actions like US drone strikes killing civilians in Afghanistan or Somalia are rarely categorized as terrorism.
Why Does This Happen?
There are three main reasons:
* Geopolitical interests, where alliances shape the label of terrorism.
* Racial and cultural bias, where non-Western groups are more likely to be branded terrorists.
* Legal flexibility, since terrorism remains vaguely defined in international law, allowing manipulation.
Western Double Standards in Practice
Key aspects of these double standards include:
* Selective Branding of States: The US has branded Libya and others as terrorist states, while ignoring Israel’s bombings of Palestinian camps.
* Sponsorship of Terrorism: The US has carried out or sponsored large-scale terror, from Vietnam bombings to supporting dictatorships in Latin America, Contras in Nicaragua, or anti-Castro Cuban exiles. These are not considered terrorism by Western standards.
* Manipulation of Semantics: Western definitions exclude “wholesale terrorism” by states and focus only on “retail terrorism” by individuals or non-state groups, often from the Global South.
* Broader Hypocrisy: Western powers maintain cordial ties with repressive regimes while promoting democracy and human rights in rhetoric. Islam has been framed as the "new threat" after communism, and drone strikes or nuclear double standards highlight the same pattern of selective morality.
Conclusion
Western double standards in defining terrorism stem not from consistent moral or legal principles, but from realpolitik. This practice undermines global counterterrorism efforts and fuels accusations of hypocrisy, particularly from the Global South. A more objective, universally applied definition of terrorism is urgently needed—but remains unlikely due to entrenched geopolitical divisions.
Western countries apply double standards in defining terrorism as part of their broader pursuit of global dominance. They profess adherence to universal principles, while exempting themselves or their allies when political, economic, or strategic interests are at stake.
By Muhammad Murtaza (terrorism expert and Project Manager at Pak Institute for Peace Studies)
This article was presented at the conference on “Israeli State Terrorism,” held on the occasion of the Iran’s National Day of Fight against Terrorism, organized by Habilian Association (Iranian Families of Terrorism Victims).
Your Comment