The two attacks, even according to US official definition, qualify as terrorist acts, because they were carried out by organized groups, involved violence that claimed innocent people's lives, were meant to spread panic and fear beyond the immediate victims, and had clear political aims.

According to the official US definition, an attack does not have to be carried out by a recognizable organization to be termed terrorism. The reason: "lone wolves", motivated by ideology of a terrorist movement and operating outside any command structure, could launch extremely destructive attacks and therefore present a greater threat than organized groups.

All these factors, plus more, were present in the Shufu and Shanshan attacks but still the US continues to use double standard in the fight against terrorism.

In fact, some Western media outlets have based their analyses on the following argument: Crude instruments used in the Xinjiang attacks suggest they were not the work of a well-organized group, and there is no evidence to show that Uygur rioters are involved in large numbers in the global Islamic terrorism movement. Such an argument, however, is neither vital for the American definition of terrorism, nor can it be used to justify a terrorist act.

The point will become clearer if one compares the Shufu and Shanshan attacks with the Boston marathon bombing in April that left three civilians dead and more than 200 injured. The two brothers suspected of carrying out the attacks were "lone wolves" and had no organizational connection with any terrorist group. Their motive was to defend Islam from the US that has "devastated" Iraq and Afghanistan, and the weapons they used were two homemade (pressure-cooker) bombs. US President Barack Obama was quick to call the Boston marathon bombing "an act of terrorism", saying that if "any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror".

China, in sharp contrast to the US' double standard, condemned the Boston marathon bombing and showed its solidarity with the American people.

But despite the Boston bombing and Xinjiang attacks being strikingly similar in nature, the US refuses to term the latter as acts of terrorism. The use of double standard by the US-led West is blocking a universal agreement on the definition of what constitutes terrorism. And the lack of a globally binding definition of terrorism is seriously undermining international efforts in the fight against terrorists.

The author is head of the China section at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law.

(China Daily 12/20/2013 page9)