. . . .Passage 1A Time for ApologiesThroughout history, saying sorry is not something political and religious leaders have felt comfortable about. Some see it as a sign of weakness; for others its an admission that they are liable to make errorssomething religious institutions are particularly careful to avoid.But as political systems have become more sophisticated, the idea that governments or churches are faultless has become increasingly difficult to defend. The response of some people in positions of authority has been to stand up and apologize for past wrongs.The trend began in earnest in 1995, when the Queen of England admitted that the Maori people of New Zealand had been shamefully treated, when the country was a British colony. Since then, what started as trickle of apologies has turned into something of a flood. Last year alone, apologies were issued by three of the worlds most powerful nations. The US President, Bill Clinton, apologized for medical experiments which his government carried out on black American men in the 1930s; the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, apologized for Britains failure to help victims of the Irish potato famine, which killed over a million people last century; and French Catholic Bishops apologized for the role of their predecessors during World War II.But why do heads of state feel the need to apologize, and why now? one answer has to do with the recent 50th-anniversary of the end of World War II. Three years ago, governments around the world wanted to mark this historic event with some acts. But those countries which had been on the winning side found that simple celebrations of victory were no longer appropriate. Many political leaders, like most of their citizens, belong to post-war generations, who now look on the conflict as more than simply the victory of good over evil. Also, the passing of time has erased much of the propaganda of the period. In its place, recently declassified documents reveal that many of the victors either profited, or turned a blind eye to the sufferings of the war.In the event, the 50th-anniversary celebrations emphasized the recreation of harmony and the desire never to repeat the cruelties and suffering of World War II. But amid the general goodwill, the few remaining survivors of cruelties like the Holocaust, and military occupation, called for their personal suffering to be admitted, and for compensation to be paid.Two groupsJewish survivors of the Holocaust and Korean women who were forced into prostitution by the Japanese Armyhave both received apologies. However, neither group is entirely satisfied with the result.But the renewed investigation of crimes committed during World War II is only one reason for the apology phenomenon. Other governments, notably the US, have also realized that if they want to demand high standards of moral behavior from other nations, they can only do so if they admit their own past wrongs. President Clinton has responded by making public apologies to US citizens, who, as recently as the 1950s, were used as guinea-pig in secret experiments involving radiation and sexually transmitted diseases. He is also expected to make a formal apology to the descendants of slaves in the US.But its not just a sense of conscience, nor demands from pressure groups, which lies behind these apologies. A well-timed apology can do a lot to promote a head of states public imagein the 90s, caring and sympathetic leaders are better vote winners than proud and determined ones.However, playing the public-relations game with apologies is dangerous, as some politicians have found to their cost. The Swiss government is still trying to put right the public-relations disaster that resulted from their partial apology for Switzerlands dealings with the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s.But, in Britain, Tony Blair has gained a different kind of political advantage through his apology for the Irish potato famine. His statement has helped improve relations between the parties involved in the difficult peace negotiations over Northern Ireland. He is now thought to be considering an official apology for the 1972 killing of Northern Irish Catholics by the British Army on what has become known as “Blood Sunday”.Before he issues an apology, however, Tony Blair will have to consider the possibility that victims families might issue claims for compensation. The cost of fulfilling or fighting such claims could outweigh any political advantages. Also, because this event happened relatively recently, relations between the different sides in Northern Ireland could suffer.These points illustrate some of the risks that leaders take when saying sorry for past wrongs. But, for most leaders, these risks have been purely academic. So academic, in fact, that there is a concern that “sorry” might turn out to be the easiest word after all.Passage 2Tiger comments on current ev