These are excerpts from editorials in newspapers from around the world:

Financial Times, London, on Summit of the Americas:

The Summit of the Americas is supposed to reinforce the hemisphere’s commitments to democracy and open markets. It is an opportunity for leaders from north and south to work out common ways of fostering development and prosperity. When the first summit was held 11 years ago, it took place amid hopes of economic convergence.

Sadly last weekend’s meeting in the Argentine seaside resort of Mar del Plata provided a stark contrast. It served only to highlight discord and disunity, leaving the US, Mexico, Central America, Colombia and Chile in one camp and Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela in the other. This division reflected new, more sober realities that must be taken into account in fashioning US policies in the region.

The contentious issue was the formation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, originally launched in 1994. All but five of the 34 countries signed a clause in a declaration agreeing that talks on the matter should continue next year. But three of the biggest economies — Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela — refused to do so. The time spent on the negotiations and the acrimony of the exchanges meant there was little time to consider more important issues.

The sad thing about the division is that it could have been at least contained. Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s radical president, arrived at the summit determined to “bury” an agreement he sees as characterising the worst excesses of “neo-liberalism”. Yet US negotiators pressed countries to accept a deadline for resuming talks on an accord that had been on the back-burner for at least two years.

Without any possibility of winning access to the US market for their agricultural products, Brazil and Argentina in particular — the region’s most efficient farming nations — were understandably reluctant to sign up to precise deadlines.

By allowing trade to emerge as a contentious issue with Brazil and Argentina, the US has potentially damaged relations with two countries that it could work with to promote regional stability and contain any aggressive intentions harboured by Mr. Chavez. As US policy-makers consider their options after the weekend’s summit, it would be better to start from a basis of what is practically achievable rather than pursue grand visions.

The Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat and Chronicle, on French riots:

The rioting that has been rocking the poor suburbs of Paris and towns across France for nearly two weeks is all too familiar. Remember Cincinnati a few years ago? Los Angeles and Rodney King in 1991? Rochester 41 years ago?

Once again the young among the poor and disenfranchised are revolting. This time it’s youths among France’s large Arab-Muslim minority. Twelve straight nights of violence, which so far has resulted in at least one death, the torching of 5,000 cars and arrests of more than 1,000 people, were sparked by the deaths of two youths who were accidentally electrocuted late last month.

As the pattern of race rioting in this country has shown, a level of frustration seemed to have been reached among those who felt alienated. Muslims who immigrated to Europe amid the post-Second World War economic boom to take low-paying jobs were never integrated into the staunchly secular French society. Consequently, a polarised environment has emerged in which Muslims identify themselves with their Islamic religion rather than French citizens.

As the violence intensifies among disaffected youths complaining of joblessness and discrimination, Muslim leaders have called for an end to the rampaging.

President Jacques Chirac finally intervened for the first time Sunday night by calling an inner cabinet meeting and declaring the reestablishment of security and public order the “absolute priority”.

It looks as if Chirac’s slow response to the rioting may well be an indication of his government’s lack of attention to the alienating of Muslim youths from mainstream society. This seems all too familiar.