Thoughts from London

They reap what they sow and more
The nation stood in silence at noon last Thursday in memory of the victims of Britain’s first-ever suicide bombing.

The terrorist attack on Britain was not unexpected. But when it came it shook the nation to its roots. What stunned the country even more is the revelation that those immediately involved in the multiple bombings were home-grown- British born persons of different ethnic origins.

The general expectation was that when-not if- Britain came under terrorist attack, it would be foreign perpetrators who penetrated British security or had been in this country for some time waiting for the moment. But the investigations revealed a danger that was unexpected and seemingly remote. The four persons directly involved were British citizens and living (and some of them working) in the communities where they resided.

On Thursday investigators revealed a further development that has compounded the danger. The bombs were not only assembled here but from material that is locally available, bought from chemists or other sources.

The usual suspects are persons of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin with a growing sense of alienation from the society in which they have to live.
But one of those involved was a Jamaican, born in Britain, who was either born a Muslim or converted later.

Another person sought is an Egyptian PhD student who moved here from the US to continue his studies. While they may all be linked together by a common religion, and possibly wedded to the same cause, they come from different ethnic backgrounds. This is a crucial aspect of modern terrorism that the British and other western countries ignore because of their obsession with what they perceive as Islamic fundamentalism or extremism.

Particularly after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, British intelligence, often politically driven, have looked at terrorism through a single spy glass as though Islamic extremism is the only form of terrorism this world has experienced or experiencing right now.

This obsession with Islam and the attempts to justify a war opposed by the British people, has resulted in British and other western authorities turning their backs on real and potential terrorists or extremists in their midst, many militarily trained or accustomed to violence who live in their societies.

The aftershock of 7/7 terrorism is a knee jerk reaction by the British Government just as the Bush administration acted in the aftermath of 9/11. The Blair government is in the throes of discussing new anti-terrorism legislation including banning extremist Muslim clerics from preaching in British mosques.

This whole approach reflects such unpardonable myopia that makes one wonder whether this is a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the failure of Britain (and by extension some other governments such as that of Canada and some western European states) to approach the problem of terrorism as an international phenomenon and take the appropriate measures they had promised to take.

The suicide bombings here show both national and international links. All the international connections have not yet been unearthed. Even if all of them are not, some of the international ramifications will eventually emerge.

Curiously the British media have not given sufficient coverage to the international police and intelligence effort that has gone into this investigation. Maybe it is because the government is deliberately underplaying it, not wishing to deny its own security authorities kudos or for some nationalistic reason. Perhaps the media is following suit.
Still what this international effort underscores is the multinational nature of terrorism itself in this globalised world.

If that is today’s verity why is it that western countries do not look at this problem through a multicoloured prism instead of the monochromatic glasses they use looking for an Islamic green?

Portraying Sri Lanka’s own LTTE as “one of the deadliest terrorist groups”, Canada’s MacKenzie Institute reported recently that the Tigers “pioneered the use of the suicide belt-bomb” and that they are the “only group to have killed two national leaders and used- until Arafat started the second Intifada- more suicide attackers than the combined total of all other terrorist groups around the world.”

The LTTE was banned in 2001 by Britain as a foreign terrorist group. Questions are being asked in Sri Lanka and elsewhere including here in London, why an acknowledged frontliner of the banned LTTE, Anton Balasingham is allowed to live and even make public speeches on LTTE Heroes Day analysing the violent, secessionist words of his leader, which is clearly in violation of the very law the UK has passed and has undertaken to uphold?

It might be argued that Balasingham is a British citizen and so has the right to live here. But does being a British citizen give every such person the licence to violate the country’s laws especially when these laws deal with such a serious issue as terrorism?

Terrorism experts argue that British tolerance towards acknowledged and important members of an organisation that the UK itself has banned, clearly signals to others living here that they too could act in a similar manner.

If the British authorities could thumb their collective nose at their own laws by allowing Balasingham who has only acquired British citizenship to operate here, why should not British-born persons have a greater right than Balasingham to expect similar treatment, they ask.

The Blair Government is urging tougher laws to fight terrorism. But does it really need more laws? If Britain which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council faithfully follows and implements that wide-ranging anti-terrorism Resolution 1373 (2001)which it helped pass unanimously shortly after 9/11, then the Blair Government would not have to run around now like headless chicken.

That resolution calls on all member states- that of course includes Canada, France, Norway and all those others who seem to tolerate extremists groups as though that would somehow make them immune- to take definitive steps to combat terrorism.

Equally importantly it calls on all states not to allow their territories to be used for activities that harm other states. Many of these western states, especially the permanent members of the Security Council such as Britain, have an obligation and responsibility that their own resolutions are acted upon with the seriousness they deserve.

Without doing so and joining those countries affected by terrorism to combat this modern scourge, Britain and other countries pay lip service to fighting terrorism while consorting with members of internationally acknowledged terrorist groups.

What the British public does not know is that within their own political establishment and bureaucracy there are individuals who oppose action against extremist groups known to have assassinated national leaders and committed numerous atrocities.

Ask the British High Commissioner in Colombo Stephen Evans who might be able to educate the British people on this subject. Ask some British politicians who have publicly supported an extremist group or two who have committed similar atrocities as 7/7.

In the case of the latter, the presence of members of that ethnic community in their constituencies is seen as potential votes to get them into parliament. Innocent British lives are lost because of the warped advice of officials and the self-serving interests of second-rate politicians.
They should be held accountable to the British people by making their views and interests public.

In the meantime those who now cry wolf and call for tougher laws should be forced to read and digest all those UN treaties, conventions and resolutions on combating internatinnal terrorism that were approved after much discussion and debate.
Let the game begin.

Back to Columns