Effective US Leadership, Then and Now [Archives:2002/15/Focus]

COMMON SENSE
Hassan Al-Haifi
The importance of good leadership in steering any country on the right track towards security, economic welfare and sound regional and international relations can never underestimated. For a country like the United States of America, the significance of good leadership becomes more paramount, in view of the international repercussions that cannot be ignored and which arise from everything and anything that happens in that giant urbane nation.
Just before the turn of the last century, the United States enjoyed one of those phenomenal periods of great leadership in the White House. It was a period, in which the United States was masterly in handling its own domestic affairs and assuming its international leadership position with a great sense of responsibility and a true feeling for the mission that must be borne by the world’s mightiest superpower, as well as the largest producing and consuming nation. Last week, there were members of the last White House Administration of President William Clinton, who finally came out to speak their minds against the fumbles and staggering of the present Administration in the White House, in order to ensure that the legacy of the Clinton Presidency lingers on and does not get thrown out the window by immature heirs, who even failed to carry on with some of the unfinished commendable work of that legacy. It was with noticeable appreciation that we have seen some of the leading figures in the Clinton Administration come out last week come out and speak their minds about the recent holocaust being instigated by no other than the chauvinist Zionist mongrel Ariel Sharon in the Holy Land. For sure, their anger was more directed at the lack of vision and compassion, which can be seen by the way the present US Administration has dealt with the Middle East problem. Moreover, the gullibility to which US foreign policy has become subjected to, as it caters to the sadistic cravings of a renowned butcher as he wreaks havoc in the Holy Land was just too much for some of the Clinton officials. Understandably, the Clinton Administration has a lot to be credited for in the domestic front and in the international arena. Therefore, it would be right that these officials would come out and say, “Hey, what is the present US Administration doing to all that fine work we left behind?”
Yes the Clinton Administration left a record of legacy in giving America its most prosperous times, with noticeable progress achieved in all the economic, social and cultural fronts. Internationally, the Clinton Administration showed clear understanding of the need for American leadership in steering the world in the directions of peace, international cohesion and responsibility towards alleviating the major mitigating circumstances that are bringing so much suffering to a majority of the world’s citizens, such as oppression, poverty and social decay. On the other hand, the initiatives introduced in international affairs, such as involving and leading the international to relieve the Balkans of the horrors that were unleashed by the mastermind of modern European terror, manifested by the massacres in Bosnia and Kosovo, Slobodan Melosovitch. On the other hand, the handling of the Middle East problem, while it did not reach the desired results of a permanent lasting peace, still kept that region out of any major difficulties and relieved the Palestinians of Zionist bigotry and hostility for eight years.
Once the Clinton Administration left, the American Presidency was left in the hands of a young somewhat naïve leadership. The American Presidency seemed like a monarchy inherited by a spoiled crown prince, who lacked the acumen and the foresight to at least carry on with all the fine work the previous Administration left, which was worthy of following through with. Rather than that, this Administration preferred to choose an orientation that seemed dictated by prejudice and overreaction and a poor sense of moral and conscientious responsibility, an important element of international leadership. Leadership cannot be based on continuous backtracking to try to correct all the fumbling dictated by narrow and emotional passions, which reflect naivete and poor taste rather than global power responsibility. One wonders what Mr. Bush would have done to deal with such difficult issues like the Irish civil unrest, which his predecessor has cleared out of his way. Take care, Mr. Clinton, we still remember you well.

——
[archive-e:15-v:2002-y:2002-d:2002-04-08-p:./2002/iss15/focus.htm]