MY FIRST direct and visual exposure with a terrorist act was in July 1964.

While at school, an explosion rocked the building during the mid-morning. A group of classmates and I had just finished classes at what was then Bourda Roman Catholic School, (Bourda RC) on Regent Street.

We immediately ran out of the school building in the direction where we saw many people were also running.

As we approached Regent and Wellington Streets, a large crowd had already gathered. We then proceeded North along Wellington Street, up to the corner of Robb Street and as we looked across the street from the eastern end of Robb and Wellington Streets we saw a building named Freedom House almost destroyed.

British soldiers and local riot police were present in full force. Someone shouted that a man had been killed in the explosion and that a hand was lying over on the pavement by the Metropole Cinema.

As we turned our heads in that direction, shots rang out and suddenly thick white smoke hung heavily in the air.

People began running in all directions. It was my first experience with tear gas.

The man killed in the explosion was Michael Forde. That was more than 30 years ago in this country which was then known as British Guiana. We were just two years away from Independence.

My next experience with victims of a terrorist attack was somewhat different. The year was 1979. The Cubans were closing permanently their Fisheries Office here in Georgetown. As the Secretary of the Guyana-Cuba Friendship Society, I was tasked with the responsibility of organising a farewell party for our departing Cuban friends.

By coincidence, the crew of Cubana de Aviacion was in town. They were invited to join us at the farewell party. We all had a fantastic time. The Cuban Airlines crew left early to get their scheduled rest before flying again the following day. That was the day of the Cubana Airline disaster when a terrorist anti-Castro Group based in Miami and Venezuela planted a bomb on a Cuban plane resulting in death of 73 persons, 57 of which were Cuban nationals, 11 Guyanese and five citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea when the plane plunged into the ocean off the West Coast of Barbados. Most of the 57 Cubans were workers whom we had hosted at the farewell party the night before.

I mention these two examples because, in the case of Guyana, it was the CIA that was involved in fomenting strikes and disturbances aimed at dislodging the Cheddi Jagan Administration.

In the case of Cuba, it was the anti-Castro Group with CIA connections that had embarked on an anti-Castro campaign to rid the world of a Soviet or the Caribbean extension of the `Evil Empire’.

Much has changed since those days. The CIA has moved away from conducting covert operations to remove anti-American pro-communist regimes. The Head of that Organisation was dispatched, some months ago to the Middle East to play the role of a peace facilitator in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And Cuba is no longer seen by the United States as a sponsor of state terrorism and subversive activities in Latin America and the Caribbean.

This shift in focus is of great significance not only in the context of the end of the Cold War, but also in light of the fact that the crusade is now against international terrorism rather international communism.

And even though Cuba maintains a socio-economic system that is anathema to the US, the US has been able to maintain a policy of peaceful co-existence with the Cuban Government.

Afghanistan was at one time, during the Cold War, perceived as a Soviet outpost under the Babrak Karmal Administration of the mid-seventies to the mid-eighties. Those who followed the events in those days, would recall the famous New York Times photograph showing the then US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, Zbignew Brzezinski posing with an automatic weapon on a mountain top at the Khyber Pass in Afghanistan. Brzezinski was quoted as saying; “Russia can be an empire or a democracy, but it cannot be both”.

On that occasion, the war was against the pro-communist Babrak Karmal regime; this time around, it is against the state-sponsoring terrorist regime of the Taliban.

The wheels have moved a full circle.

Much has been written and said about the events in New York and Washington.

The debate has assumed two dimensions. On the one hand, there is the humanitarian approach; on the other is the legal/political. Emphasis on the latter has been gaining greater prominence worldwide. But the humanitarian perspective is also developing a groundswell as manifested in the anti-war movements that has re-emerged within the US itself.

In the meanwhile, the UN has distanced itself from the question of war and peace as regards this particular issue and is placing greater emphasis on the humanitarian and anti-terrorist crusade. UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan himself was hard-pressed a few days ago to explain this delicate balancing act.

In the current debate taking place about the fight against terrorism, little is said about the role of the INTERPOL; a kind of United Nations for the world’s police forces with Permanent Observer Status to the UN General Assembly. INTERPOL boasts a membership of 178 Member States.

Though this world body has no policing powers of its own, it nevertheless acts as a global clearing-house for information on crime, trafficking in human beings, drugs and terrorism. INTERPOL possesses probably the world’s largest data base of finger prints, mug shots, reproductions of missing art, licence plate numbers etc.

Just before leaving office in November last year, the former Secretary General of INTERPOL Raymond Rudell, expressing his views about the fight against terrorism, called for greater emphasis on intelligence gathering and intelligence analysis again and again, under-cover operations, satellite observation and mobile phone tapping, e-mail interception and use of information technology.

Terrorism is an expression of political struggle based on a rejection of class struggle and the non-recognition of political parties as a means to conduct political struggle.

Terrorism is conducted on the false premise that the class struggle can be by-passed or accelerated to accomplish economic and political goals.

Most terrorists have a strong individualistic streak and believe in conspiratorial tactics, relying on use of arms, violence, intimidation, coercion, extortion, kidnapping etc. to achieve their objectives.

Political parties do not operate in this way. Rather, they seek to use the institutions of democracy and various forms of struggle to win the hearts and minds of people. They wage parliamentary and extra-parliamentary struggles. They conduct painstaking political work at the grassroots level to win the widest political support possible to become national parties.

Last, but not least, political parties develop international contacts and alliances based on their beliefs and convictions. People with terrorist tendencies will be hard pressed to find comfort in such organisations. Small wonder why they usually find themselves isolated and with little or no popular support.