NORWAY

NORWAY
Aftenposten, Oslo, March 19: The government was very quick to recognize the new Palestinian coalition. ... That was wise, bold and visionary. There was a clear understanding of the importance of seizing an opportunity.
The Palestinians' coalition had a slow birth. In many ways, it was forced by the catastrophic economic, humanitarian and security conditions in Palestinian areas, as well as pressure from Arab countries. We also know that this new government has built-in conflicts that can quickly lead to paralysis and crisis.
But we are convinced that the new coalition needs a chance.
Israel, the U.S. and several major EU countries believe the coalition did not go far enough in fulfilling demands on the Palestinians. We disagree. The platform says that agreements already entered between Israel and Palestinians will be respected.
Political blunder
We believe it would be yet another political blunder by the Bush administration if it once again rejects a government the Palestinians themselves have negotiated. There are limits on the condescending disenfranchising of a people.
Recognition of a government, of course, does not mean that one agrees with all it does. We have few illusions about Hamas and its intentions. But we are convinced that a continued international boycott will just stimulate fundamental and radical forces that will always opposed any peace settlement.
TOKYO
Asahi Shimbun, March 20: Four full years have passed since U.S. and British forces invaded Iraq in the face of widespread opposition voiced around the world. Look at the outcome of the war now. Nobody could possibly say Iraq or the world is safer today than in 2003. It is hard not to be stunned by the enormity of the losses caused by this misstep.
Not all diplomatic options were exhausted before the conflict started. The plan for the postwar occupation of Iraq was based on overly optimistic assumptions. Above all, the United States failed to engineer a united international front for the war that included Islamic nations. It is important to ponder the bitter lessons of the war without belittling them with the luxury of hindsight.
Manipulation of intelligence
The biggest failure of the U.S. and British governments was the discovery that weapons of mass destruction, cited as the central cause for the war, did not exist. The two governments manipulated intelligence to make the world believe a security crisis was unfolding. The manipulation of intelligence was exposed by investigations conducted by the U.S. Congress and other organizations to uncover the reasons for the policy debacle.
A mistake offers many lessons. The first thing to do is to face up to the mistake.
BRITAIN
Daily Telegraph, London, March 21: Holders of a British passport, even the EU-friendly claret-coloured ones introduced in 1995, still bask in the comforting knowledge that Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State "requests and requires" all those whom it may concern to "allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance" as well as affording "such assistance and protection as may be necessary".
But for a new generation of passport holders, such a stirring validation of the right to travel is about to be transformed into something very different. For new passports -- issued no longer by the Passport Office, but by the Orwellian-sounding Identity and Passport Service (IPS) -- will be little more than a template for the new national ID card.
Face-to-face interview
Take a look at the hoops through which new applicants will have to jump. Filling in the application form is just the start. Once the IPS has established that the applicant exists and is entitled to a passport, he will be invited to call a 24-hour advice line to arrange a face-to-face interview at one of 69 new centers.
The "interrogation" (their word) will take between 10 and 20 minutes, though it will be conducted in a "non-threatening manner"; how very comforting. A list of up to 200 personal questions will be drawn on to authenticate people's identities.
From next year, all new passport applicants will have their details added to the ID database and the year after that everyone applying for a passport -- whether their first or a renewal -- will have to attend one of these "authentication centers" to have their fingerprints taken.
Should citizens of a mature democracy really have to be treated quite so much like common criminals? The Government's justification for this monstrous level of intrusion is to fight passport fraud and terrorism. Noble aims, but given this Government's sheer incompetence, can anyone be confident that these Draconian measures will have an impact on either?