Leadership Quote by Gijs de Vries

“We still lack a global definition of terrorism” is bureaucratic understatement with a sharpened edge. Gijs de Vries, speaking as a politician inside the post-9/11 security ecosystem, is pointing to a problem that looks technical but is really political power in disguise: whoever gets to define terrorism gets to decide which violence is illegitimate, which actors are beyond negotiation, and which states can claim moral clarity while doing brutal things of their own.

The line’s intent is pragmatic. It’s a nudge toward harmonizing laws, intelligence sharing, extradition standards, and sanctions regimes. Without a shared definition, cooperation turns into a patchwork: one country’s “terrorist” is another’s “insurgent,” “freedom fighter,” or proxy asset. Courts stall, suspects slip through jurisdictional seams, and alliances fracture over labels.

The subtext is more uncomfortable. The absence of a global definition isn’t an oversight; it’s a feature of international politics. States resist definitions that could boomerang: criminalize their military tactics, delegitimize allies, or implicate them in “state terrorism.” Others insist that “terrorism” must exclude struggles against occupation, or must include state violence against civilians. Every proposed definition is a negotiation over history, sovereignty, and blame.

De Vries’ “still” carries quiet frustration: decades of UN debates, waves of attacks, and expanding counterterror laws, yet the foundational term remains contested. The quote works because it exposes how language becomes a battlefield. “Terrorism” isn’t just a descriptor; it’s a switch that activates extraordinary powers, from surveillance to detention to war.