Written on
May 14, 2020

Definition of Terrorism vs the Building of a Unified Global Doctrine

Definition of Terrorism vs the Building

One could argue that coming to an agreed definition is a preliminary condition for establishing unified laws, strategies and methods to counter such a phenomena that would lead to an international effort using the same policy. But is this realistic?

No it is not realistic as an agreed definition will cause domestic and international turmoil that will always leave some nations, leaders, policy makers, law makers unsatisfied. So what is the alternative?

The alternative should be to develop an international operational response to acts of terror. This response should define the national and international strategies and tactics required for protecting citizens from terror attacks. Provided all parties want to protect its citizens and critical infrastructures from acts of terror, let us invest time in defining a set of responses for prevention and reaction that are internationally agreed. This will create a common operational platform that will serve as a working agenda that abides by internationally agreed operational requirements, and , clearly raise the security level.

The definition of terror does not serve the same purpose and is a deadlock with no solution on the horizon! but defining the operational platform for effective protection of citizens and critical infrastructures is needed urgently. It is in the interest of all parties to follow certain guidelines which will in turn increase a nation's home front, protect its citizens and establish proven strategies to fight terror.

It is about time that the world starts speaking a uniform language with a solid alphabet regarding terrorism. This language needs to be created, spoken, understood and serve as a solid means of communication.