Daily Star, Beirut, Lebanon, on the root of violence in Lebanon:

The fighting, human suffering, political complications and security threats that emanate from the recent events at Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in North Lebanon cannot be resolved only in Nahr al-Bared. They neither originated nor will end there. They represent a legacy of political and security events in the past half-century that will become a continuing trajectory if they are not addressed in their full regional and global context. ... If there is a single thread that runs through the modern history that has brought us to this point, it is the lingering problem of Palestinian refugees and their unachieved rights, which in turn has expanded over the years to become the wider Arab-Israeli problem. At the same time, the particular threats and tensions in Lebanon today are widely linked by many people to the often antagonistic relations between Syria and Lebanon. The ongoing UN investigation into the murder of Rafik Hariri and many others in this country in the past two years may shed light on who is responsible for these crimes, and who may be behind the intermittent bombs that terrorise, kill and maim innocent Lebanese. Until then, the Nahr al-Bared crisis must not be allowed to become yet another unresolved political dilemma whose fundamental causes are swept under the rug. ...The Hindu, Madras, India, on amendments to Sri Lanka’s Citizenship Act:

The readiness shown by the Sri Lanka government to amend the Grant of Citizenship to Persons of Indian Origin Act, 2003 to enable an estimated 28,500 `Ceylon Tamil refugees’ living in various camps across Tamil Nadu to get Sri Lankan citizenship is commendable. These poorest of the poor among the refugees, who fled the north-east of the island in 1990 on account of the ethnic conflict, could not become Sri Lankan citizens because of an anomaly in the Citizenship Act as amended in 2003. The legislation stipulates continuous stay in Sri Lanka from 1964 as a condition for the grant of citizenship; and does not provide for those who had to leave the country for reasons beyond their control. ...

In one callous stroke, the Citizenship Act of 1948 rendered nearly 90 per cent of a million-strong population of people of recent Indian origin, overwhelmingly `plantation Tamils,’ stateless. The Government of India, which unfortunately compromised on this issue after taking a firm stand initially, must share responsibility with the Sri Lankan state for the long-term injustice done to these hapless people. ... The real breakthrough came with the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement of July 1987, when Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi persuaded President J.R. Jayewardene to agree to confer citizenship on those `stateless’ people who remained in Sri Lanka. But bureaucratic resistance to the implementation of what was agreed on as well as some residual legal issues remained. The JVP’s progressive initiative to win for the 28,500 `Ceylon Tamil refugees’ (possibly a slight underestimate) the citizenship rights they are entitled to should bring to a close an unsavoury historical chapter in the India-Sri Lanka relationship>The Wall Street Journal Asia, on electoral-fraud charges:

Thailand’s generals swept into power last year promising to ferret out “rampant” corruption and return power to the people quickly. To that end, today’s expected judicial ruling on electoral-fraud charges levied against the country’s two biggest political parties sounds like it could clear the path for democracy. Yet it may do just the opposite.

Bangkok’s generals justified September’s coup in part by charging former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra with corruption. So it made sense to press an existing fraud case against his political party, Thai Rak Thai, announced last June by the attorney general’s office. The attorney general alleged that Thai Rak Thai rigged parliamentary elections by hiring small parties to “run” against them, splitting the opposition vote and ensuring a victory. The Democrat Party, in contrast, was accused of paying parties not to run. ...

We cannot comment on the merits of the legal case against either party. But the findings of the judicial body will be open to question because the generals disbanded Thailand’s constitutional court soon after overthrowing the country’s democratically elected government. In its place, they decreed the formation of a nine-member constitutional tribunal. Even though the tribunal is populated with respected jurists, it’s unclear if they have been influenced or pressured by the generals — and so any ruling they make may be viewed by the Thai public as politically motivated, whether that’s true or not. ...

King Bhumibol Adulyadej summed the mess up nicely last Thursday, when he spoke to the constitutional tribunal. “Either way the ruling goes, it will be bad for the country, there will be mistakes,” he said. How big a mistake, however, is still an open question.