The report states that in a world where terrorism should be a human and absolute concept, the West has reduced it to a political tool; where the criterion for condemning or purging groups is not the level of violence and victims, but their relationship to the interests of the United States and its allies, and this selective approach has turned security into a tradable commodity in power equations.
The experience of the West over the past few decades in its interaction with developments in West Asia shows that concepts such as “terrorism,” “violence,” and “human rights” are subject to the political and security considerations of Western powers rather than being based on fixed legal or humanitarian principles. In this context, a similar action can, depending on the perpetrator and its orientation, sometimes be condemned in the strongest terms and sometimes justified under titles such as “resistance” or “legitimate action,” a problem that indicates the lack of an honest and universal standard.
This selective approach has effectively reduced terrorism from a moral-legal concept to a political tool. What is decisive is not the level of violence, nor the number of victims, nor the human consequences, but the relationship of an actor to the strategic interests of the United States and its allies. The result of such a policy is the formation of double standards in which some movements, despite a clear history of violence, are removed from terrorist lists and redefined as “opposition” or “political alternative.”
The consequence of this policy is an indirect legitimization of organized violence. When violent actions are ignored or even supported when they align with Western goals, the message is sent to the world that violence, if done in the “right direction,” is acceptable. Such a logic not only fuels regional instability, but also seriously undermines global public confidence in Western human rights claims.
Ultimately, the fundamental question is who defines terrorism and on what basis is such a definition provided? If the answer is “power” and “political interests,” then concepts such as human rights and the fight against violence become mere cover for advancing geopolitical goals. In such an environment, the only way to avoid this inversion is awareness, careful analysis, and the distinction between legitimate demands and directed violence that is imposed on public opinion in the form of a war of narratives.
