Chilcot inquiry accused of whitewash
Was the war against Iraq “legal” or not? Such is the question uppermost in chairman Sir John Chilcot’s mind as he opens today’s inquiry into Britain’s decision to join the US-led invasion of 2003. However, according to the front page of today’s Guardian, such an analysis is beyond his inquiry’s competence. Senior judicial figures, who have long argued that the war “was a serious violation of international law" are questioning the sincerity of Sir John’s claims that the war’s “legality” is the key issue, given that his panel “does not include a single judge or a lawyer”. This raises questions, the London daily notes, “about the willingness of the government, which established the inquiry, to look seriously at whether (it) acted illegally.” It would seem that the question as to whether a “legal” war would have justified the violent deaths to date of an estimated 100,000 civilians has so far not been considered.
In a time of crisis with high unemployment, young Lithuanians are following in the footsteps of their emigrant ancestors. Tens of thousands have left the country in search of a better life, mainly in the British Isles and Scandinavia. The weekly Veidas reports: 
The new Eurogroup meeting on February 9 is not enough to banish the spectre of a Greek bankruptcy. While Athens may largely be responsible for the crisis, the EU and its partners are not blameless themselves. La Stampa argues that their confused messages and the absence of any strategy have transformed a resolvable problem into an explosive chaos. 
Two camps, two theories, and two visions of France: 18 years after the massacre of 800,000 Tutsis, the precise role played by Paris is still the subject of heated debate, fueled by the findings of successive criminal investigations.