SINGAPORE

SINGAPORE
Straits Times, Singapore, May 25: Semantics are an essential part of the political game that Taiwanese leaders are wont to play with China. In the latest manifestation of word play, Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian's inauguration speech last week was calculated not to infuriate China but to say -- or omit -- enough to keep alive its suspicions about the island's course of action.
What he must keep in mind is that, unlike pro-independence fundamentalists who can make demands without having to take responsibility for the consequences, he is mandated to ensure the security and prosperity of Taiwan. Nothing could be more important to the Taiwanese.
Loss of Taiwan
China's annoyed response to the speech was expected. What it will look for now is where Chen's actions lead. He would do himself and his voters a great disservice if he believed that China would not act if he crossed the line. It is not in China's interests to fight a war that sets back its amazing economic transformation, but it would have no option but to fight if the alternative is the loss of Taiwan. Unlike word play, realities can be horrendously simple."
BRITAIN
The Guardian, London, May 24: The Taiwan Strait is one of the last items of unfinished business from the cold war -- and it can still make us shiver. Thursday's inauguration of Taiwan's recently re-elected president, Chen Shui-bian, has been watched with very close attention.
No one can quarrel with the status quo in which Taiwan is effectively independent while everyone follows the U.S. lead in pretending that "there is only 'one China."' What worries many people is the danger that either the pro-independence fanatics in Taiwan or the pro-reunification die-hards on the mainland will unmask this charade. We can breathe a little easier now, after encouraging signals from both sides.
Hyperbole
Mr. Chen has a bad record of ratcheting up his hyperbole when in domestic trouble, and China still regards him as a "slippery politician." Beijing's moderation is offset by the way it has bullied Hong Kong over political reform, and it still talks of crushing a move to independence "at any cost." Both sides should be urged to take it easy and settle for what they have got.
BRITAIN
Daily Telegraph, London, May 24: Yesterday's American attack on the militia of the Shia extremist Moqtada al-Sadr comes not a moment too soon. But what is its purpose?
The fear must be that this is a tactical escalation of force along a broad line of strategic retreat: biff him a bit before the next round of negotiation and accommodation begins. Obviously, al-Sadr has not won in strictly military terms, but that was never his game.
Rather, his aim was to create a political aesthetic for the gratification of certain portions of the Muslim world. He has defied the coalition and got away with it for a considerable period of time, at least in the sense of avoiding total annihilation (rather after the fashion of Yasser Arafat's escape from the clutches of the Israelis in Lebanon in 1982).
'National reconciliation'
Iraq's Shia majority, especially, was disempowered under the largely Sunni Ba'athists.
Since Saddam Hussein was overthrown, they have been told by the Western powers that there must be a dramatic slow-down in de-Ba'athification for the sake of "national reconciliation"; "affirmative action" for their Sunni oppressors; and now, their political fate is to be molded by the U.N. special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, a Sunni Arab nationalist of the old school who had few problems with Saddam.
Inevitably, even the least sectarian of the Iraqi Shias are asking: is the political playing field to be tilted against them once more for the sake of the West's overarching relationship with their Sunni Arab neighbors?