Editorial - The Sunday Times

Sri Lanka's then Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar had for many years argued the case against global terror, long before its present day advocates ever did, but his pleas had fallen on deaf ears.

As far back as April 15, 1998, addressing an eminent audience at Chatham House, London, under the auspices of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, he said:

" ............And when I say that the terrorism in my country is financed to a very large extent by the activities of a certain organization in the country where I am discussing this question, I am met with the answer "well, we don't have much evidence; if you can find the evidence we might be able to do something about it", to which my reply has been "how can I possibly find evidence of preparations which are taking place in your country to commit terrorist activities in my country which is thousands of miles away from your country".

This has been the stock response given by many friendly foreign countries whenever requests are made to crack down on fund raising in the West, and the Foreign Minister was echoing the frustrations of the nation.

He added: "....There is another limitation which is timeless. It will always be with us. It is the limitation of being small, relatively weak and relatively lacking in what is called 'political clout'. When you are in that position what you get from your friends is sympathy, commiseration and condolence, not much more".

He referred to the "amazing speed" with which the western world adopted the United Nations Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, and called it an "approach of enlightened self-interest"shortly after the Oklahoma, Berlin, Manchester and Paris bombings.

It was passed in a record two sittings of the UN General Assembly in 1996 and 1997, and was open for signature by Member-States on January 12, 1998. Sri Lanka was the first to sign.

This Convention however, got entangled in the usual web of international verbiage as diplomats began dissecting the meaning of "terrorism" -- for one man's terrorist was another man's freedom-fighter. The Convention aimed at stating that "terrorism is terrorism", and that there were to be no distinctions in the interpretation of its meaning.

9/11 gave it fresh impetus. The US and the UK, thoroughly rattled, concentrated their efforts in West Asia (the Middle East), losing sight of the real global war on terror -- the huge empire of illicit drug trafficking, human smuggling, piracy on the high seas, the arms bazaars, the money laundering, the trans-border movement of funds outside the banking system, the access to chemical and who knows nuclear weaponry very soon -- and a plethora of such activities.

This phenomenon has changed the lives of many who have become millionaires overnight through their nefarious deals, very much like the underworld king pins.

So, this week's bombshell from the US and Canada of a 'sting operation' by their secret service would come as some consolation to a nation that has long faced the brunt of global terrorism and yet, felt short changed by the international response to its plight.

The sting operation had some bizarre factors, but it also shows the extent of funds in the hands of the LTTE, which has spread its tentacles far and wide, from America and Canada to Europe, Japan and many parts of East Asia from where it is known to be shipping arms to Sri Lanka.

Though welcome, such sting operations are so few and far between that their impact is debatable.

Already, Japan is hemming and hawing about freezing LTTE assets -- hoping such a non-move would coax the rebels to negotiations. Even in the US, certain quarters in the State Department trot out the same argument though they take a different view when it comes to their "enlightened self-interest".

The UK has made its ban of the LTTE a standing joke; it allows fundraising under its nose, its diplomats visit rebel headquarters; and permit an NGO to simply change its name and operate when it gets raided. Norway is fretting that the EU decided to ban the LTTE, and India is also adopting double-standards when it comes to fighting the global war on terror.

So on the eve of the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 episode, it might be time for countries to take stock of their response to the global war on terror.

While we need to compliment the limited operation in the US and Canada, it virtually becomes nothing more than a PR exercise in comparison to what is not being done by these countries. Or are we as a little nation sans political clout to be contented with small mercies?