The revelation that the perpetrators of the London attacks were British citizens, born and raised in northern England, has shocked politicians and commentators to the core. This was the outcome many feared the most as it threatens to smash already-tender community relations to the bone. London's pride at being a multinational city and a joyous mixture of world cultures must now be measured against the perils and problems which such diversity brings. How do we balance the rights of citizens and the independence of different communities with the urgent requirement to protect the people? Is the great London melting-pot, in danger of becoming a cauldron of hate and fear instead?

Such questions are very clearly on the mind of London's mayor Ken Livingstone. Nicknamed "Red Ken" by the British press for his socialist and frequently controversial views, Livingstone was also once described by tabloid The Sun as "the most odious man in Britain." The title of his autobiography, "If Voting Changed Anything, They'd Abolish It", is testament to the popular London leader's reputation as a good humored loose-canon. But his commentary in Thursday's Financial Times Deutschland -- printed in the original in Wednesday's Financial Times -- is a moving piece on London's internationalism, openness and spirit.

"For the last 10 days, and with extraordinary intensity last Wednesday and Thursday, Londoners have lived out triumph and grief with the eyes of the world on them," Livingstone begins, referring to London's victorious Olympics Games bid, and the tragic bombing attacks in London that followed. And he praises his city for the stoicism with which it faced last Thursday's tragedy. This is London's manner, the Mayor insists. "Those who propose we cut ourselves off from the world do not understand it cannot be done. London without its international character would not be London."

Livingstone launches into a tribute to London's internationalism and history, including a mention of Shakespeare (whose immediate relevance to international terrorism remains a tad unclear). He heralds London as the world's greatest financial center and as "one of the greatest entertainment, architecture, media, music and advertising centers of the world." Above all, "Londoners profit from the internationalism of their city," the Mayor insists, exemplified best by the words of one grieving mother: "Anthony [her son] is a Nigerian, born in London, worked in London, he is world citizen. Here today we have Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindhus all united in love for Anthony." "There are no words to follow that," Livingstone writes, in full agreement.

The conservative daily Die Welt, on the other hand, prefers to highlight the implicit dangers of such an open internationalist society. The paper insists that "London is an example of what threatens us all, if our alertness does not the lead to a strengthening of awareness and to an examination of our security networks -- the prerequisite for any secure society." The paper does manage to find some praise for the British, open-society model.

But the editorial goes on to say that such openness is very much a test of courage in modern society. London, it insists, "is a paradigm for how the integration of immigrant groups in western society can go wrong if tolerance and openness become common currency to the point that we don't look closely at those in our midst, who might seek to destroy our social fabric." The paper concentrates on the emergence of concepts of a "parallel society", "virtual apartheid" and "polarisation", following racial tension in northern England in 2001. "This situation was glossed-over for a long time with talk of religious freedom but now it has taken its own revenge." Indeed, given the conclusion of the piece, such a statement sounds almost like triumphalist crowing. "Tolerance, which fails to pay attention," Die Welt tells us, "is simply culpable neglect."

Dominic Johnson, foreign editor of Die Tageszeitung, echoes similar themes in a lengthy commentary on Thursday. He asserts that it is not enough for Blair and the British security services to talk of hunting down the "masterminds" of the attack, "a small group of extremists" who share an "evil ideology". This kind of talk, springs straight from "James Bond films and John-Le-Carré novels," the paper writes and conceals a more worrying reality: namely that the terrorists came straight out of the midst of European society.

"British security services have been warning for years about growing disaffection amongst Muslim youths," Johnson laments and he also cites the Bradford riots in 2001 as evidence that community relations have been strained for some time. Failed integration has lead to "self-segregation for purposes of self-protection, whereby members of different communities fall back into 'comfort zones', where they only have interaction with people of their own kind." This presents a huge dilemma for the British government, he believes. Continuing the war on terror is vital, but never before has hunting terrorists seemed so capable of feeding precisely that disaffection that terrorism seeks to exploit.

German dailies also spill ink on Thursday over America's rejection of German plans to reform the United Nations Security Council. Germany had been hoping -- together with Brazil, Japan, India and two African countries -- to attain permanent seats on the council. But the US has shattered that dream and commentators are now picking through the shards.

In it's lead editorial, the conservative daily Frankfurter Allgemeine calls the US rejection of the reform plan "a cold shower for the last prestige project of (German Chancellor Gerhard) Schroeder's foreign policy." But, the paper points out, this should hardly come as a surprise. After all, Washington has long indicated that it thinks that, with France and Britain represented, there are enough European members on the security council. "Berlin's application suffered from the very beginning from two fundamental misconceptions. The first was a hope ... that John Kerry would win the 2004 American presidential election and, as a gesture of reconciliation, offer the Germans a much-longed for place on the Council.... The other was the assumption, that the rest of the world would have nothing against giving Germany more responsibility -- a 'peace-loving' power who had opposed the war in Iraq and always paid its UN contributions on time." Nice try, the paper seems to be saying.

The business daily Handelsblatt also blasts the German government's mishandling of the U.N. Security Council bid. "Despite the advice of many experts, seldom has a piece of foreign policy been so naively, thoughtlessly and self-importantly conducted as, of all things, the bid to join the highest council of the United Nations." Schroeder, the paper argues, was blinded by the laurels he received from some in the global community for his refusal to go along with US President George W. Bush in the invasion of Iraq. "In foreign policy, trust and a proven track record of responsibility are paramount. The few deployments of German armed forces (as in Afghanistan) are not enough."