“You have the watches – we have the time”

This saying was one frequently used by the Taliban when referring to the foreign forces they took on. Terrorist organizations can bid their time. State Actors, especially democratic ones, cannot. The decisions they make are reliant on their citizens, both because of the agenda they set and their proven aversion to prolonged warfare. Because of this, new and more pressing issues have made counterterrorism less of a priority and more of an obligation. And obligations, if not binding by a formal agreement, are easily eluded.

Understanding the terrorist threat

Before looking at counterterrorism in the current international context, it is necessary to highlight certain facts about the nature of the terrorist threat.

Firstly, there is not a general consensus on what terrorism is. This is because it entails a vast variety of actors whose objectives and ways of functioning are extremely diverse. The one thing all of them have in common is the use of violence and consequently fear as a means of achieving their political or ideological aims. Sometimes, they may collaborate with other groups involved pursuing the same short-term interest; challenge the status quo.

Moreover, terrorism must not be understood as an isolated threat, but rather as intertwined with larger geopolitical tensions. Like a virus, terrorist groups search for sick bodies that are already highly vulnerable to their attacks. Then, upon infiltration, they weaken the immune system until they finally take over. In these places terrorist organizations are able to act as the de facto authorities. Therefore, instability is needed for the rise of terrorism.

Current international realities

As we have already established, all the regions most devastated by terrorism lack stability and are for that reason the perfect breeding ground for extremism. What are the underlying issues these places face? They vary. For example, in Syria, the fundamentals for peace are still nonexistent. In Pakistan, the systematic absence of national unity and basic infrastructure are the main causes of instability. And in the Sahel, all of the above combine with profound ethnic conflict into the largest epicenter for terrorists worldwide.

Every one of these hotspots exists at a time of profound changes in the world order, as seen with the return of great power competition and the subsequent power transition to Asia. As it centers around the Pacific, the United States has had to leave its position as the world’s “policeman” behind. And in the resulting power vacuums, others have been quick to move in. In recent years, China has been keeping Pakistan from falling apart thanks to its economic prowess. Russia, through both conventional armed forces and the privately-owned Wagner Group, has played a major role in the Sudanese and Syrian civil wars. However, these new “tenants” have had to deal with the consequences of expanding their sphere of influence. In March, a suicide blast killed five Chinese nationals as they traveled to the Dasu dam, Pakistan’s largest hydropower project. The Crocus City Hall attack, which killed 144 people, was claimed by the ISIS-K, an Islamic State regional branch operating in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Any intervention by international actors that seeks to undermine terrorists in what they believe to be their domain is unlikely to be well received. The subsequent response leads to a negative view on interference outside national borders. How can counterterrorism leaders overcome this?

A new era for counterterrorism

Even at a time of great distrust in global governance institutions, collective security is now more than ever a crucial arrangement. Climate change and global pandemics have demonstrated the inability of effective national responses to transnational threats. This has to be taken into account in the fight against terrorism. Because of this, a reinvigorated era for counterterrorism is in order, with cooperation at its core.

Existing organizations, such as the Security Council Counter Terrorism Committee, can be put into good use. International law must be developed to take into account new terrorist tendencies, such as lone wolf attacks, Foreign Terrorist Fighters or the use of the internet for radicalization purposes. States should attempt to disrupt the funding of terrorist activity through the implementation of generally accepted measures, such as the ones provided by the FATF. Moreover, efforts shouldn’t just be centered around terrorism itself but on the causes behind the expansion of terrorism. For example, soft power initiatives can be put in place as an attractive alternative for local communities that currently rely on terrorist organizations to make a living. There are many means to counter terrorism, but international compromise is needed.

“You have watches – we have the time”. It might be true. But watches are not necessary timers and if continued pressure on counterterrorism is exerted, time for global terror might be running out.