SOUTH AFRICA

SOUTH AFRICA
Cape Times, Cape Town, Feb. 11: South Africa goes to the polls on April 14 for an election that will be of considerable political significance, but also laden with symbolism.
Most obviously, it will take place amid celebrations of the country's 10th anniversary of democracy.
Given the bleak prognoses that abounded in the days before April 27, 1994 -- the date of the first democratic election -- it is a remarkable achievement.
Political life
The confidence generated by the achievement will hopefully give rise to the beginnings of a shift in the way we conduct our political life. It will be heartening were this election to see politicians and the electorate genuinely grappling with issues rather than clubbing one another over the head with the divisions of the past.
Another sign of that maturity would be the softening of the rhetoric that has inflamed emotions in the past -- most particularly in Kwa Zulu Natal -- and an end to unrealistic promises. As the South African Council of Churches has pointed out, such promises give rise to unhealthy expectations.
BRITAIN
The Times, London, Feb. 9: The visit by the Prince of Wales to Bam, the city almost obliterated by a devastating earthquake two months ago, is an example of compassion transcending political differences. But the timing is extraordinary.
The Prince arrived in Tehran last night only ten days before a general election rendered almost meaningless by the malign disqualification of almost 2,000 reformist candidates by the hardline Guardian Council. These intolerant extremists are determined to shore up the rule of obscurantist conservative clerics.
Fanatical supporters
Even more symbolically, his arrival coincides with the 25th anniversary of the overthrow of the Shah and the terror inflicted by Ayatollah Khomeini's fanatical supporters. Whatever the Palace's protestations, this first royal visit to Iran since the Islamist revolution will be seen by millions as endorsing a regime that suppresses the universally accepted norms of democracy.
NEW ZEALAND
The Press, Christchurch, Feb. 7: Aside from the politics of the matter, enough legitimate questions about the intelligence agencies' performance exist to justify the inquiries.
Australia has already conducted a parliamentary inquiry whose results will be released on March 1. If there were any consistency in politics, the French and the Germans would be doing the same as they, like the British and the Americans, were equally misinformed about what Saddam Hussein possessed in the way of weapons of mass destruction. Everyone, from United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan down, believed it.
Intelligence has been spectacularly wrong in the last 20 years about the strength of the Soviet Union, about nuclear weapons in Pakistan and India, and most recently about weapons programs in Libya and North Korea. Intelligence is never certain. Arguments within agencies and outside over the significance of any given piece of information acquired from a covert source occur frequently.
Duplicity
Ultimately, of course, it was the politicians' use of the intelligence they received that is of most importance. It is unthinkable that Bush, Blair or (Australian Prime Minister John) Howard committed their troops to war on the basis of intelligence they had manipulated or lied about.