BRITAIN

BRITAIN
The Guardian, London, June 3: In the U.S., two Senate committees have now called joint hearings on whether the Bush administration misused intelligence information to make its case for an attack on Iraq. In Australia, the Labor opposition announced last night it is taking "a long, hard look" at calling for an independent inquiry on the same issue (Australia's defense minister has already said public confidence may require such a move).
In Britain, meanwhile, there is still nothing but stonewalling. Here, ministers continue to set themselves against calls for inquiry and to insult those who make them. This is both a wrong and a foolish position to adopt. An inquiry is justified, and the pressure for one is mounting. The Blair government should not be out of step with its Iraq war allies, never mind out of step with its own supporters and backbenchers.
Central theme
The focus of an inquiry should be the quality of the intelligence available to ministers in the period leading up to the Iraq war, and the use that was made of it. But it is important not to rule out issues that might be raised by this central theme, including the effect on British diplomacy and the implications for the government's legal position on the war.
SPAIN
El Pais, Madrid, June 3: That the Evian summit has gone ahead without problems and recriminations despite the rifts caused by the war in Iraq represents a success. Bush and Chirac have proved, at least publicly, that they can work together for the future (of Iraq) despite having disagreed deeply over this conflict.
Central argument
Disagreements have become secondary. Bush has hardly shifted his position and has imposed his agenda, including a plan of action against weapons of mass destruction, despite the central argument that Bush, Blair and Aznar used to justify the war in Iraq has yet to produce any concrete discoveries in the field.
ITALY
Corriere della Sera, Milan, June 4: Without sounding improper, the G-8 conference in Evian might go down in history as a masterpiece in slight-of-hand. George Bush has shook hands with (Jacques) Chirac and (Gerhard) Schroeder. He is once again the paladin of the Atlantic unity, pressing for a multinational collaboration.
If what the international community wanted was to recover collective dialogue, then the thousands of niceties in Evian have been useful in reaching that goal. And it is surely this political result that prevails over the new promises made to the poor and ill of the world.
But in the war on terrorism, as in that against the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the president of the United States has in fact imposed his agenda, challenging the others to match America's determination, or else find themselves marginalized.
Middle Eastern order
Alone, George Bush has abandoned the G-8 to go and defend in person the new Middle Eastern order. Anyone who attempts to remind him that Europe, the UN and Russia co-authored the "road map for peace" has been left behind.
Yesterday, before the Palestinian prime minister (Mahmoud Abbas) and Israeli prime minister (Ariel) Sharon, Bush called upon both parties to take responsibility. The Palestinians, if they want a "free and peaceful" state, must stop the terror attacks or risk derailing the entire project. Israel, meanwhile, must begin dismantling its illegal settlements. Here, all the political slight-of-hand, seen in Evian, is gone. The president of the United States has come to the table.
At least now we need to root for him, we need to seize the opportunity of a strong and common strategy. Even if Evian confirms that multilateralism is a desirable option for the US, it is only one option.
JAPAN
Yomiuri Shimbun, Tokyo, June 1: It could be interpreted as a sign that the new leadership in China is getting ready to embark on new relationships with other countries.
The first summit meeting between Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Chinese President Hu Jintao proceeded amicably all the way through. The atmosphere at this meeting in St. Petersburg was completely different from the icy atmosphere at the meeting between Koizumi and former Chinese President Jiang Zemin in Mexico in autumn.
Japan-China diplomacy
Hu may wish to open a new era in Japan-China diplomacy, different from the one under the rule of Jiang, in line with these new trends in his country. If that is really his intention, it could be a move that would herald a new era in China.
But it is still too early to decide that China has changed under the new president. As proof, Hu reportedly asked Koizumi to be sure to handle historical controversies and the Taiwan issue appropriately.
A quarter century after the conclusion of the 1978 Japan-China Treaty of Peace and Friendship, bilateral relations have moved beyond the framework of friendship.