Terrorism is an activity that keeps occurring in the world time and again. There is no country, no continent, no community that is not touched by it in some way. The fear that it generates, the lives that it takes, and the unseen and visible wounds that it leaves behind are all felt across borders. As soon as a terrorist attack occurs, particularly one that reaches global headlines, the first reaction that usually follows is an avalanche of international condemnation. Leaders from across the world, institutions such as the United Nations, and even common people post messages showing grief, outrage, and solidarity. But behind those words, what do these denunciations actually accomplish? Do they prevent the next atrocity? Do they bring solace to the victims? Or do they simply vanish into the news cycle, remembered only until the next tragedy occurs?
These are tough questions, but they are worth asking. And after each great act of terror, there's a cycle the world appears to go through. News emerges. People respond. Leaders issue words. Social media becomes full of hashtags. Nations denounce the action. And gradually, the world gets on with it, until the cycle begins again. It's become so routine that even some have questioned if these denouncements signify anything whatsoever. However, some feel that they have a small but necessary part to play in determining how the world responds to terrorism. To get an idea of this, it's worth examining what occurs in the weeks and days following an attack and what, exactly, these declarations really accomplish.
Consider the concert hall bombing in Moscow in March 2024. It was sudden, violent, and took the lives of more than a hundred innocent people. ISIS-K took credit. In a matter of hours, European, Asian, Middle Eastern, and even North American leaders, despite all the tensions between Russia and them currently, released statements condemning the violence. A few nations took action beyond words; they provided assistance, intelligence cooperation, and resources. The United Nations declared it an attack on humanity. For a moment, the political differences among nations appeared to fade away, and the world united to stand against terror. But within a few days, focus dissipated. The declarations were stored away. And the world moved on.
It is both the strength and weakness of global condemnations. On the one hand, they declare clearly that, however much countries are polarised on politics, war, trade, or ideology, there are certain things, such as terrorism, with which they are united. It also provides relief, though slight, to the victims and their loved ones, that they are not singular in their pain. When the entire world chimes in, it indicates that someone is paying attention, someone is hearing. It informs individuals that the attack is not merely a localised tragedy, but one universal loss.
Simultaneously, condemnations tend to be generic. They tend to be brief and well-crafted, with the same pattern. Phrases such as "cowardly act," "barbaric attack," or "heinous crime" are repeated again and again. They might ring loud, but they hardly accompany actual action. Often, the same words can be copied and pasted from one incident to another. It raises a legitimate question: Are these mere words? Do they have an impact?
In certain instances, they do. Condemnations can have diplomatic pressure as a consequence. For instance, following the Mumbai attacks in India in 2008, international outcry, primarily from the US and the UK, put tremendous pressure on Pakistan to act against militant outfits based in its territory. Although the change was not instantaneous or universal, it did produce diplomatic repercussions. Likewise, when the Garissa University attack took place in Kenya, several nations showed not only their grief but also came forward with aid of a counter-terrorism kind, training, and resources. In these situations, condemnations paved the way for cooperation and aid.
They can also assist nations in forming alliances. When a number of countries issue common statements or parrot one another's words, it tends to strengthen the relationships between them, particularly security collaborations. Condemnations can be a precursor to more substantial decisions, such as advocating for UN resolutions, sanctioning countries, or initiating investigations. They contribute to the global narrative that terrorism, wherever it occurs or by whomever it is carried out, is intolerable. And in diplomacy, sometimes that common language is the beginning of common action.
But it is also true that not all attacks are treated equally. This is one of the strongest criticisms of global condemnations; they are not always uniform. An attack in Paris or New York could get global declarations within hours, whereas an equally lethal strike in Burkina Faso or Somalia can draw complete silence from the world. Individuals who reside in war zones or developing nations tend to feel neglected, and rightfully so. When scores are massacred in an African village or a Middle Eastern town, and the world remains silent, it is as if it is a cruel double standard. It appears that some lives are more important than others.
The inconsistency is not only geographic. It's also political. Governments have a tendency to resist issuing condemnations if the attacks are related to friends or areas in which they have interests. In such territories as Syria, where several states are caught in a messy war, condemnations have either been selective and cautious or lacking altogether. This dilutes the moral authority of such declarations. When condemnations are more a reflection of political expediency than of principle, they begin to lose their meaning.
Then there's the question of whether the terrorists themselves are even concerned about these condemnations. The majority of them don't play by international law. They don't care about the United Nations or the norms of diplomacy. More than that, they welcome condemnation; it shows, in their view, that they matter, that the world is watching. For such groups, mention in international headlines, even in indignation, is a sort of perverse victory. Thus, condemnation may keep a government or a state from acting, which has an interest in avoiding international loss of reputation, but it will not work on ideologically motivated extremists who live in anarchy.
But that does not make such statements ineffective. At times, when condemnations are accompanied by actual action, they can be effective. Following the Paris attack in 2015, France conducted airstrikes against ISIS, with the help of its allies. The military operations were justified based on the international outrage expressed in the wake of the attacks. The strong condemnation provided legitimacy to the action. Likewise, following the Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand, the global outrage across the world not only expressed sympathy for the victims but also initiated fresh debates on online hate speech, white supremacy, and gun legislation. Condemnation in this instance facilitated changes in policy and soul-searching in a number of countries.
Even when there is no immediate action taken, these statements assist in chronicling history. They form part of the global memory of the incident. When the world speaks out, even with words alone, it sets a moral line. It states: this is not okay, this cannot happen again, and we oppose it. During periods of darkness, these words are important because they bring light. They produce a sense of common human values, of compassion, justice, and opposition to violence.
They also help shape public opinion. Citizens heed their leaders' words. A powerful, sincere condemnation can soothe bereaved families, reassure citizens, and voice the values a country upholds. Silence, or an ineffective statement, can provoke outrage, dismay, or even political retaliation. In democracies, leaders are frequently held responsible for what they say in the face of tragedy. Condemnations are foreign policy only in part; they are also national identity, leadership, and morality.
So, do global denunciations halt terrorism? Not immediately. They can't keep a suicide bomber from pushing a button or an assailant from overwhelming a school. They don't provide on-the-spot protection. But they do something more, they shape the way the world reacts to that violence. They generate pressure. They call forth cooperation. They generate moral clarity. And occasionally, they motivate action.
And of course, for denunciations to be meaningful, they need to be accompanied by consistency and follow-through. They need to not just talk of remorse but translate it into justice. They need to not just proclaim values but uphold them. A pronouncement that is forgotten the day after is mere noise. But one that triggers change, one that is remembered, one that brings the world together, that is something strong.
Ultimately, words alone won't defeat terrorism. But they can begin the process. They can establish the tone. They can side with victims when they are most isolated. And in a world too often dismembered by violence and intolerance, that still matters.