IRAQ: Arab governments welcomed Iraq's new governing council as a step towards ending the occupation and restoring the country's stability and independence, writes Michael Jansen.
As could be expected, Washington's Arab allies in the war to topple Saddam Hussein adopted the most positive view of the council. Kuwait regarded the body as a "step on the road to restoring security and stability" in Iraq.
Bahrain and Qatar echoed this stance.
Saudi Arabia and Jordan, which did not overtly participate in the war, were more cautious. The Saudi cabinet said the council should "lead to the establishment of a legitimate government", implying the council was, at best, an interim body.
The Saudi-run Organisation of the Islamic Conference welcomed the council, but said that its powers should be extended and called for it to be charged with the task of drawing up a constitution "which would serve the interests and promote the national unity of the Iraqi people". Jordan's King Abdullah also said that legitimacy would be restored once Iraq has an elected government.
Arab spokesmen have reacted differently to individual appointees. On one hand, Jordanian officials expressed reservations about the elevation to the council of Mr Ahmad Chalabi, who fled the country before being imprisoned following his conviction for embezzlement from the failed Petra Bank. He has been warned he could be arrested if he enters Jordan. On the other hand, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which did not support the war, was reassured by the presence of the former Iraqi foreign minister, Dr Adnan Pachachi, who served as an adviser on Iraqi affairs to the president of the UAE federation, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan.
The Arab League Secretary General, Mr Amr Mousa, a strong opponent of the war, made it clear that he wanted to see the early departure of foreign forces from Iraq.
He said that the council's creation should lead "to the restoration of Iraq's sovereignty, birth of a new Iraq led by the Iraqi people, and an end to the occupation". He added that "forming this council through elections would have given it more force and credibility".
Ghassan Charbel, writing in the London daily al-Hayat, took a different line. He said that Washington, sensing the dangers posed by the present political vacuum, "threw the ball into the Iraqis' court". Now Iraqis would have to share the blame and responsibility for how the situation evolves, he said.
The official Egyptian daily al-Akhbar took a more critical stance, warning, "The council will remain stamped by the seal of infamy for having assumed its responsibilities under the arms of the US-British occupation forces."
Jordan's al-Dastour also adopted a tough line. "The establishment of the council will remain a formality to beautify the occupation unless it is followed by serious and fundamental steps which will guarantee the independence and sovereignty of Iraq."
The London-based pan-Arab daily, al-Quds al-Arabi, stated: "Arab governments must not recognise this council and must not deal with its members or its executives as representatives of the Iraqi people."
The predominance of recent returnees who have been out of touch with their own people for many years worries many commentators. Iraqis say they do not know who many of these people are or what they stand for. The fact that 13 of the 25 members of the council are Shias is seen as a destabilising factor as this community has never wielded power in Iraq.
Finally, the US decision to select council members on a sectarian basis is widely seen as an extremely negative development which could lead to the "Lebanon-isation" of Iraq.
There is suspicion that Washington intends to use sectarianism as a means to divide and rule the council. For many Arab observers, the backdrop to the ceremonial opening of the council, the three stripes of the Iraqi flag superimposed horizontally on the map, symbolised the division of the country into three sectors: Kurdish, Sunni and Shia.