Print
Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article

With new international Syria talks in Vienna planned for this coming weekend, the diplomatic standoff over who counts as a terrorist versus legitimate opposition in Syria will be in renewed focus. In the recent past, Russia has repeatedly stated that an internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism would provide the grounds for co-operation on Syria. But the fact of the matter is that Russia and the West have almost never seen eye-to-eye on what defines terrorism, and this divergence is driven by differing political interests, more than anything else.

With new international Syria talks in Vienna planned for this coming weekend, the diplomatic standoff over who counts as a terrorist versus legitimate opposition in Syria will be in renewed focus. In the recent past, Russia has repeatedly stated that an internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism would provide the grounds for co-operation on Syria. But the fact of the matter is that Russia and the West have almost never seen eye-to-eye on what defines terrorism, and this divergence is driven by differing political interests, more than anything else.

Russian talk that all “antiterrorist efforts have to rest on a solid foundation of international law” regularly makes for nice sound bites. But a sober review of what have now been almost fifteen years of ‘Global War on Terror’ shows Moscow’s definition of terrorism has hardly ever matched with that of the US. Sure, following 9/11, there was a brief convergence in views on Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban. Also, the US was temporarily more accepting of Russia’s claim to be fighting terrorism in Chechnya. Yet, political interests sustained this convergence, with Moscow assisting logistically in the Afghanistan war and in turn hoping for US intelligence sharing on Chechnya.

Already in 2002, there were two ‘war on terror’ perspectives. President Bush’s January ‘axis of evil’ speech, declaring Iran and Syria terrorist threats, outraged Russia. It responded with its own list, featuring extremists trained in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt (who all happened to be US allies). A lack of full-scale US support for Russia’s ‘war on terror’ in Chechnya also became evident (remember Condi Rice’s remarks in early 2002: ”Not every Chechen is a terrorist and the Chechens' legitimate aspirations for a political solution should be pursued by the Russians”). Finally, Russia was vehemently opposed to the 2003 Iraq War.

Differences in perspectives are again obvious in Syria today, with Russia's terrorist definition being more inclusive.  We’ve been told frequently that there are no 'moderate' rebels in Syria to support and that the Free Syrian Army is ‘hard to find’. Washington, conversely, has reiterated its commitment to support those ‘moderate’ rebels Russia doubts exist, most recently in its decision to send Special Operation Forces to train and advise some of them. After the recent Vienna talks, both sides suggested ‘additional consultations’ to agree on a comprehensive list of ‘terrorists’ in Syria, but mistrust between them might well undermine such efforts, which would have to entail intelligence sharing.

The truth is that terrorist designations used by major powers in the context of any conflict will only match in the rare case that it meets all sides’ political interests. Speaking of the US and Russia, this has not been the case since Afghanistan. Given the imperatives of realpolitik, one shouldn't entertain hopes that the UN Security Council will arrive at a common legal framework for defining ‘terrorists’ anytime soon. Who "looks, acts and walks like a terrorist" will remain a matter of perception, which in turn will continue to be driven by crude political objectives.

Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article

Poll conducted

  1. In your opinion, what are the US long-term goals for Russia?
    U.S. wants to establish partnership relations with Russia on condition that it meets the U.S. requirements  
     33 (31%)
    U.S. wants to deter Russia’s military and political activity  
     30 (28%)
    U.S. wants to dissolve Russia  
     24 (22%)
    U.S. wants to establish alliance relations with Russia under the US conditions to rival China  
     21 (19%)
For business
For researchers
For students