Israel continues to hold on to its "security zone" in south Lebanon in direct violation of a UN security council resolution (Resolution no 425 of March 1978).

Yet the Israeli attack was not deemed worthy enough to be important news, let alone call for condemnation, although terrorist attacks against US embassies make world headlines.

While the US supports Israel's violation of UN resolutions, it punishes Iraq for the same crime. While the almost routine Israeli bombings in Lebanon, causing civilian casualties, are not deemed worthy of comment, the US has to show that it is doing something against terrorism by missile attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan. The double standards in this so-called war against terrorism are pretty clear.

India's response to the US attacks on terrorist bases in Sudan and Afghanistan has been to suggest an international initiative to combat terrorism. Such an agreement is unlikely to come about, primarily because the US would never agree to it.

The fact of the matter is that the US has no interest in a global fight against terrorism -- it only wants to preserve its own interests in the name of combating terrorism. In fact, there are plenty of instances where it has actively connived with terrorism when it has suited its ends.

Consider the record. Twelve years ago, the World Court had ruled that the US in flagrant violation of international law was waging a proxy war against Nicaragua, and demanded reparations to be paid by the US government to that country.

A UN general assembly resolution, opposed only by the US, Israel and El Salvador, then called upon all nations to respect international law, without naming any state, although the implication was quite clear. The US declared that the World Court, a UN body, had overstepped its jurisdiction, and that it did not consider itself bound by the directive.

A clear case where the country was guilty of funding terrorism and was condemned by the whole world.

The US did not hesitate to invade Panama and tiny Grenada in defence of its own interests, and cared little for UN condemnation of these invasions. A UN general assembly resolution called the invasion of Panama a "flagrant violation of international law and the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states" and called for the withdrawal of "US armed invasion forces from Panama."

Cuba has for long been branded a rogue state by the US for its so-called support of world terrorism, perhaps because it sent troops to fight the South African invasion of Angola. The white South African government at the time, however, was not censured.

The infamous Helms-Burton Act penalises foreign companies from doing business with Cuba, an act in flagrant violation of the WTO. Although the act does not expressly prohibit shipments of medicine to Cuba, the provisions are so draconian, calling for such severe penalties for the slightest deviation, that in practice corporations avoid trading with Cuba at all.

This has raised the price of medicines and medical equipment in that country, with predictable consequences. A November 1996 UN general assembly resolution called for withdrawing the embargo against Cuba. In the same year, the Inter-American juridical committee concluded that the Helms-Burton Act was a violation of international law.

Go further back in history, and CIA-sponsored acts of terrorism can be found dime a dozen. In 1953, a CIA-M16 backed coup in Iran ousted the democratic government and installed the Shah back in power. Syria has had a history of CIA-funded coups. The less said about Latin America the better.

Even apart from Israel, the US has often turned a blind eye to state terror. Consider what happened in its own backyard, in El Salvador, where death squads roamed at will. The US had no quarrel with that government, nor with its lack of democracy, yet of course, different standards apply for Cuba's lack of democracy. Indonesia, under Suharto, has been another US favourite.

In December 1975, the UN security council unanimously ordered Indonesia to withdraw from East Timor. Since then, the US has kept up its arms shipments to that country, and a American company actively connives in siphoning off oil from the region. Saddam Hussein himself was a blue-eyed boy of the US, and the lynchpin in the US strategy for containing a revolutionary Iran. It was US support for Saddam which turned the tide in the Iran-Iraq war. When Saddam gassed his Kurdish population at Halabja, the US looked the other way, inspite of the fact that UN reports had documented that Saddam had used chemical weapons. The CIA's support to Afghan fundamentalists is now coming home to roost.

US policy in the Middle East is very clear. The enormous energy resources of the region must be made secure for the West. The preferable mode of doing this is through propping up local dictatorships, which are easy to control and will work actively against any radical nationalist threat. The talk of being against Islamic fundamentalism is rather absurd, when it is realised that Saudi Arabia is one of the most extreme fundamentalist regimes, and yet the US has no quarrel with it.

The other pillar of US Middle East policy is Israel, whose function is to keep the Arabs in line. Support for conservative Arab regimes and for Israel are part of the same US strategy, which is to ensure control of oil. Small wonder that the mass of the population in the region see US policy as against their interests, making the region a happy hunting ground for terrorists.