On the surface, the consensus is loud and clear there should be zero tolerance of terrorist acts of any kind.

So, yesterday, when the world observed the fourth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US, the statesmen's comments about commitment and resolve to press ahead with the fight against terror continued.

But at the same time, a common question is being asked worldwide are we any safer than four years ago?

Politicians may argue that we are.

Training camps of terrorist cells, such as the notorious al-Qaida in Afghanistan have been demolished. And the Taliban regime behind them has been overthrown.

However, ordinary people feel otherwise.

The frequency and destructiveness of terrorist activities are unnerving. A Mexican newspaper stated that the number of terrorist attacks has more than doubled since the US-led war on Iraq began. The media's constant feed of bad news, together with incessant alerts of possible attacks, despite almost all of which have turned out to be false alarms, cultivates the fear that terrorists may attack at anytime, anywhere.

It may seem incomprehensible that the threat of terror appears to be spreading as politicians are beginning to join hands across national boundaries in the fight against terror.

Nevertheless, it is even more obvious that many countries remain divided over what terrorism stands for, in spite of all the rhetoric about collaboration.

Wide divergences over the definition of terrorism are one of the major obstacles to the 32-country Core Group's attempt to work out a sensible draft document of achievements for reform of the UN.

UN Secretary General Koffi Annan said he was disappointed at the possibility that countries may fail to come up with a sensible answer sheet addressing the multitude of the present-day world's priorities, when leaders of more than 170 nations meet on Wednesday at the UN headquarters to celebrate its 60th anniversary.

If that does occur, every country should feel ashamed and reflect on its own role in the international alliance against terror.

Despite the vociferous chorus against terror, double standards in defining terrorism have resulted in increasing cracks in the once united front against terror.

It is thought-provoking that terrorists in one country can be granted political asylum in another, and can even expect liberties and support as freedom fighters in some countries.

When terrorist attacks against certain countries are considered acts of bravery, and those against some others are classed as terrorism, it is impossible to sustain a functional united front against terror.

The idea to forge an international alliance is derived from the understanding that no country can single-handedly do away with terrorism.

There is sufficient evidence that as long as they have safe havens in any part of the world, the web of terror can persist and recover even after a fatal defeat.

Experts' recent warning that al-Qaida is evolving from a physical organization into an ideology points out a fresh dimension of the anti-terror campaign that calls for inter-governmental cooperation.

But concerted efforts are out of the question if the international undertaking is hijacked by the private agendas of any individual country.

There will be no security for any specific country if the fight against terror does not take into account the safety of all countries.

(China Daily September 12, 2005)