World View

There was mixed response to the Arab League summit held in Damascus with some countries boycotting it and others sending just a token representation. At the Nato summit in Belgrade, however, heads of member countries of the Western bloc deliberated on the advantages of expanding the alliance to the doorstep of Russia.

In Iraq, the government forces and Al Mahdi army battled for the control of Basra, which ultimately ended in a ceasefire and in the killing of scores of people. These events were contemplated, analysed and commented on. We present here excerpts of editorials from the regional and the international press.

Arab League summit

As the host country, Syria was at the receiving end during the Arab League summit. It also exposed the deep division within the Arab world. Some of the leading Arab countries either boycotted the meeting or sent junior officials to the venue which in the past always used to be attended by the heads of states.

Calling it a "summit of frustration", Arab News said: "Substantial progress at Arab summits is rare. Habitual divisions have marked previous gatherings and have been usually papered over by a convenient consensus on generalities. But when half the leaders of the Damascus summit do not show up, the chances of reaching any sort of breakthrough considerably lessens, and the odds are further shortened when one of the principal parties of the very dispute which has kept so many leaders away, in this case Lebanon, boycotts altogether."

Blaming Syria for the poor response, it remarked that the nonparticipation of so many Arab leaders in Damascus is the culmination of a growing sense of frustration with Syria's leadership, mostly over its role in Lebanon, its declared support for Hamas in its battle for Palestinian minds and hearts with Fatah, and not to mention its all but declared alliance with Iran.

"Syria must acknowledge the concerns of other Arab countries over the continuation of divisions in Lebanon, and their impact on regional stability. It is equally important for other Arab countries to accept that the influence of Syria, ultimately, has a ceiling and that Damascus is not the only player in Lebanon. Nor is Syria and Lebanon the only problem in the region. There is no shortage of crises in this part of the world: Palestinians against Israel, Palestinians against Palestinians, Iraq, Darfur, Somalia, and Arab economic cooperation in a globalised world," it added.

Nato expansion

In Belgrade, the US President George W. Bush pushed for the expansion of Nato to the east. He insisted that the Western alliance should make a decision on granting membership to Ukraine and Georgia, a decision which will not go well with Russia.

Commenting on the summit, New York Times stated that despite its benefits, expansion will not cure what ails Nato. "The greatest military alliance in history has begun the 21st century fractured and without a consensus about the threats it faces and how to meet them. Nowhere are Nato's problems more pressing - or more dangerous - than in Afghanistan."

Elaborating, it commented that Nato's problems go beyond Afghanistan. "There is still a huge gap in American and allied military capabilities and spending. And alliance leaders have yet to have a serious and sustained discussion on how they would jointly address such major challenges as nonproliferation, energy security or a rising China. Nor has the alliance figured out how to deal with Russia, whose opposition to Ukraine and Georgia being tapped as possible future members could create even more division and acrimony at the summit."

In Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki ordered a crackdown on Al Mahdi army which has filled in the void created by the withdrawal of the British forces from the port city of Basra. The militia owing allegiance to Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr was in virtual control of the gateway to Iraqi oil exports and there was pressure on Al Maliki from the US to bring the province under the control of the Iraqi government.

"The real problem with Al Maliki's initiative was that it failed to achieve his objective, which was the disarmament of elements of the Mahdi Army and other militias that have carved up Basra since the withdrawal of British forces, at the expense of the Iraqi government," said the Washington Post.

"What the end of the fighting demonstrated is that Al Maliki's government and army are not yet strong enough to decisively impose themselves by force in areas controlled by Al Mahdi army or other militias, at least not without the full support of US ground forces ... At best, the battle of Basra will persuade the Shiite parties to fight for control over the city in upcoming provincial elections, rather than in the streets. But the fact that an Iraqi government commonly described as impotent and inert now is willing and able to fight Shiite militias is a step in the right direction."

The Christian Science Monitor, however, said that General David Petraeus needs to be blunt in his coming report on Iraq and say whether last week's battle for Basra has made it easier for the US to start pulling out. It indicated that "The six-day conflict in Iraq's second largest city could be a turning point leading to a stronger central government. If not, the US has difficult choices ahead."