Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo

Jan. 20, on the 2004 U.S. presidential election:

At present, the dominant view is that President George W. Bush will be re-elected. In addition to his strength as the incumbent, the atmosphere in the United States makes it hard to criticize the president while the country is continuing to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is watching this presidential race even more attentively than usual, wondering whether changes will emerge in the United States' fight against terror and its unilateralist action, which heavily tinges the Bush administration.

There are many problems the international community as a whole must address, such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism, the wide gap in wealth between the rich and poor countries and global warming.

Under such circumstances, global geopolitical divisions will only widen if the United States continues to cling to unilateralism.

The presidential race is usually an arena where the partisan interests of the Republican and Democratic parties conflict. It is hoped, however, that presidential candidates will discuss ways and means, irrespective of party affiliations, for the United States to regain the respect of the rest of the world this time around.

Liberation, Paris

Jan. 21, on the year of the monkey:

In the eyes of the Chinese, the monkey, an unpredictable and facetious animal, assures that the year that it presides over will be full of important changes (among previous years, 1944 and 1968 stand out.) The one that starts tomorrow will probably not have any trouble confirming predictions: China's upsurge has already revolutionized international affairs. …

One of the most effective vehicles of this opening toward modernity is the Chinese diaspora. Immigrants have always been one of China's biggest natural resources. … They have also always contributed to the prosperity and stability of their host countries. …

For France too, the Chinese, who are living here in ever-increasing numbers, are an opportunity.

La Repubblica, Rome

Jan. 21, on the Iowa caucuses:

The unexpected and immense crowd of people who faced the freezing cold in order to vote in the first Democratic primary has stirred a cold breeze to make Bush and the Republicans shiver.

The experience of all U.S. elections teaches not to read too much into Iowa. But there are two indisputable figures: 75 percent of the state's citizens are against the war, yet only 18 percent voted for Howard Dean, the candidate whose banner was his fierce opposition to the war. And the success of two moderates John Kerry … and the southerner Edwards, came in the highest electoral turnout since 1972.

These figures do not mean that the Democrats have a reasonable chance of overthrowing George Junior from the family throne. But it does mean that Karl Rove, Bush's electoral pilot, won't have a comfortable extremist opponent to demolish with the usual charges of liberal elitism. …

The Guardian, London

Jan. 21, on the Iowa caucuses:

Democrats of every persuasion should thank Iowa's voters. The state party's caucuses went a long way to defining the battleground, challenges and requisite qualifications in the coming struggle to unseat George Bush. The surprise outcome also shattered a few illusions. Better that gooses are cooked now than later, when Republicans turn up the heat.

Among Iowa's several voter messages, the most important was pragmatic. Democrats desire, above all, a winner. Given the utter awfulness of Mr. Bush, as they see it, this is not a time for gallant losers or the ideologically pure in heart. They want a man (since a woman is not currently available) who has the credibility, character, experience and resourcefulness to stay the national course. That may be the main explanation for John Kerry's run from behind; and why Wesley Clark, who kept his powder dry for New Hampshire next week, may be the one who trips him up. …

The Times, London

Jan. 21, on Dean's disappointing Iowa caucus results:

… The Dean machine fell apart in Iowa for one overwhelming reason. His opponents and a skeptical media combined to emphasize the possible doubts about his candidature. His temperament has been questioned, the relevance of his time spent as the governor of a small state has been queried and his capacity to defeat George W. Bush in November has been derided. Even the whereabouts of his low-key wife was an issue. …

Matters will be clearer in a week's time. New Hampshire will be the host to not one primary but, unofficially, two. Dr. Dean and Mr. Kerry are fighting to emerge as the "liberal" champion, while Mr. Edwards, Gen. Clark and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (who may well have been seriously damaged by ignoring Iowa) will face off for the right to portray themselves as the principal "centrist" for the rest of the campaign.

Mr. Bush, who delivered his State of the Union address last night, will want his potential challengers to spend as long as possible attacking each other, exhausting their finances and appearing less than statesmanlike to the electorate. Unless New Hampshire's voters are decisive next week, that wish could well be fulfilled.

Sydney (Australia) Morning

Jan. 21, on the U.S. State of the Union address:

Rarely should Australians lift anything wholesale from the United States, but here is one that is worthy - the State of the Union address. …

It is a speech that allows Americans to see inside the mind of their leader in a way no other can. It can be historic - in 1823 James Monroe wrote his famed doctrine that the American continents were no longer to be considered as subjects for colonisation by European nations. And it can be dull - Abraham Lincoln, mid-Civil War, rattled on about the profit his government turned on the post office. But always the address has reflected the president's vision of the world and the future. In 1801 Thomas Jefferson wrote that immigration and citizenship laws should be eased, asking: "Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe?" In 1961 John Kennedy's address spoke of the climate of fear in which he operated. In 1974 Richard Nixon promised lasting world peace, including a Middle East settlement, and that he would never resign. In 2002 George Bush described North Korea, Iran and Iraq as an "axis of evil."

Whether these views were right or not, whether promises were fulfilled or not, they were out there. Americans get a constitutionally sanctioned yearly report in which their leader, amid the hubris, paints a broad canvas of his aims, ideals and view of the world.

The Straits Times, Singapore

Jan. 20, on Iran's elections:

In the latest round of the tussle for power in Iran, the Guardians' Council, a conservative-dominated body, has barred nearly half of 8,000 hopefuls from standing for election on political and theological grounds. Among them are about 80 sitting members in a parliament where reformers have put conservatives on the defensive.

In a sense, the council's move to alter the political landscape ahead of the parliamentary elections, which are due to take place on Feb. 20, is a sign of desperation. Conservatives are already in charge of the main levers of power: the courts, the armed forces, the broadcast media and the council, which can reject bills it considers unIslamic or unconstitutional and veto election candidates.

The scale on which the council has used its veto power this time - only 8 percent of candidates were blocked out before the 2000 vote - suggests hard-liners are more nervous about their prospects than they would like to confess.