Britain's decision worthy of emulation

The global battle against terrorism achieved yet another significant victory when Al-Qaeda's second-in-command, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, was killed in Pakistan last week. His death delivers another major blow to international terrorism.

The Libyan national, the terror outfit's former operational leader, rose to be the second most important figure in Al Qaeda since the death of Osama bin Laden last May. With Bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri assuming control of the terrorist outfit, al-Rahman became the deputy as its organisational coordinator.

Undoubtedly, al-Rahman's death is a tremendous loss for al-Qaeda as al-Zawahiri was relying heavily on his deputy after the US-led forces killed Bin Laden. The US Forces achieved their latest landmark in the global battle against terror when al-Rahman was killed last Monday in the lawless Pakistani tribal region of Waziristan.

Though the cause of his death was not specified, al-Rahman was killed on the same day that a CIA drone strike was reported in the area. Believed to be in his mid-30s, al-Rahman had been a close confidante of bin Laden and once served as his emissary to Iran.

When the American Navy SEALs killed Bin Laden earlier this year, they found evidence of al-Rahman's role as operational chief. Reports said that al-Rahman had joined bin Laden as a teenager in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union.

The latest success of the US-led Forces would be welcomed by all peace-loving people across the globe. President Mahinda Rajapaksa had told the UN General Assembly a few years ago, terrorism in any part of the world is terrorism and should be eradicated likewise.

While commending the United States Forces for the brave act in their mission to eradicate global terrorism, we call upon the international community not to view terrorism in this part of the world in a different perspective. When Bin Laden was killed by the US Forces, they said the Al Qaeda leader had been a legitimate target.

Similarly, Veluppillai Prabhakaran had been a legitimate target for the Government of Sri Lanka because he, as the leader of the world's most ruthless terrorist outfit, had been instrumental in killing thousands of people and also injuring hundreds of thousands of people through a wide range of merciless terror attacks.

Certain countries which turn a Nelsonian eye on the human rights of the US-led coalition forces, attempt to blow things out of proportion to project a negative human rights record of Sri Lanka's valiant Security Forces. Such countries, surprisingly give equal status to a ruthless terrorist organisation and a legitimate army of a sovereign state attempting to protect its own people and safeguard its territorial integrity.

Like any other sovereign state, Sri Lanka's Security Forces have a legitimate right to protect its territory and its people against terrorism. While respecting the similar rights of the so-called big countries, some countries try to show that Sri Lanka must respect the human rights of its terrorists and of its citizens who had been the unfortunate victims of the brutal terrorist outfit.

Even at this late stage, al-Rahman's death should be an eye-opener to the international community that there are no two types of terrorism, one for the West and another for this part of the world. Be it in the West or East, terrorism unleashes only misery. Therefore, terrorism in any part of the world should be eradicated in a similar manner at any cost.

Certain countries which pontificate to us on human rights care two hoots for human rights when terrorism hits their own countries. In sharp contrast, Sri Lanka's stance on international terrorism has been firm and unwavering and moreover, the country has always advocated a fearless leadership to all anti-terrorism operations.

It is up to the countries in the West to ban the front organisations of various terror outfits which openly operate in their countries. As the Home Secretary of the UK, Theresa May has quite rightly pointed out, a change of the British Human Rights Act is necessary to permit the deportation of criminals though the pro-LTTE groups lobby against this move among Conservatives.

There has been a strong and open disagreement within the Conservative Party in the UK, a part of the ruling Conservative-LibDem coalition, over implementing the Human Rights Act, with the pro-LTTE Tamils among Conservatives working against the Home Secretary who has unveiled plans to make major amendments to the Act.The differences came into sharp focus at the recent Conservative Party Conference in Manchester, when May said that immigration rules will be amended to check foreign nationals in the UK who are convicted of criminal offences resisting deportation by invoking their right to family life under the Human Rights Act.

The Home Secretary's move against the provisions of the Human Rights Act and even the suggestion of repealing it has broad support across the Conservative Party, as witnessed by the huge ovation she received when she stressed the need to amend the clauses or even abolish the Act. The Home Secretary's position is that secondary legislation should be introduced to make it explicitly clear that foreign nationals can be deported when they are convicted of a criminal offence, breach immigration rules, establish a family in Britain while living in the country illegally and rely on benefits for their families.She said that the immigration rules would "ensure that the misinterpretation of Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to family life, no longer prevents the deportation of people who shouldn't be here".

The British authorities took another landmark decision with regard to asylum seekers. The pro-LTTE Tamil groups had failed in their attempt to stop the deportation of a planeload of 50 Tamils to Sri Lanka. Despite various unsuccessful attempts by the Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Freedom from Torture to project a gloomy picture of Sri Lanka, the UK Border Agency took a bold decision in rejecting the stand of the three INGOs that the deportees would be at risk of being detained and tortured on arrival in Sri Lanka.

The British authorities should be commended for their courageous decision as the European Court of Human Rights too has ruled that not all Tamil asylum seekers need protection. It is our fervent wish and hope that other countries in the West too would emulate the British example and make a sincere effort to curb terrorism and the front organisations of the now defunct terror outfits such as the LTTE.