16 January 2007
The concepts
behind international leadership are complex and say quite a lot about the role
of leadership itself.
In this essay, I
will attempt to highlight the importance of an internationally recognised
leader, to maintain the balance between representing the interests and giving a
voice to, his/her people or cause. At
the same time, demonstrating the ability for coalition building, diplomacy, a
good rapport with other leaders, willingness to compromise and when it is necessary, make a critical decision based on the benefit of
the entire international community.
While it is the
responsibility of a leader to represent the interest and security of his/her
country or region within the international arena, it is also necessary to carry
out this responsibility without putting into detriment or environmental
degradation, the rest of the international community.
For example, in
an article by George Bush SR., he stresses that the job of leader requires
engagement and cooperation; otherwise if a country such as the
Despite having
the necessary support of the international community, it is impossible to see
how the U.S. could lay claim to taking into consideration, the consequences of
his actions, most notably, how it would affect the Iraqi people.
Despite the fact
that Saddam Hussein acted irresponsively to the
international community or even the Middle East, in his invasion of
As is pointed out
by Michael Gorbachev, diplomacy, and alternative strategies must be maintained
at all times, because the bell tolls for every life lost in a conflict.
In the
globalising world we now live in, when leaders collaborate, with a view to
leading the rest of the world (as was the case of the G8 summit) at Gleneagles
in 2006; many thought that 8 leaders took it upon themselves to try an make a
difference to developing nations and bring about some new initiatives that
would help the poorest countries get on the road to recovery from poverty.
By contrast
however, others campaigned that, these leaders (of rich industrialised nations)
imposed themselves in an undemocratic manner on the rest of the international
community, treating other leaders and their less powerful nations as subservient,
thus making partial decisions about the destiny of the developing world and
then virtually abandoning most of the partial initiatives which were made
during that summit.
This is an
example of how more emphasis is placed upon ideals; self manipulated interests
and agendas, rather than consensus building for the good of the majority.
There was an
extremely vast opposition to the G8 summit, because those leaders who thought
they were acting ‘for the developing world, were not acting with it i.e. the
complaint being why weren’t the leaders from these poor nations invited to have
a say? Had they been so, they would have
easily out numbered the rich nations who only represented the few.
The point behind
this example, is good leadership qualities were not
being observed i.e. the ability to listen to opposing voices; what might have
been ideal for the western leaders might certainly have differed for the poor
majority.
As Boutros
Boutros-Ghali states, it is not just about individuals and there acts, but
about leadership itself; which involves looking at the implications and how
they will play their part in history.
Certainly in
building democracies or spreading the idea of it, should hinge on good
leadership. Rather than being obsessed with state crafting, Ghali
points out that, democracies could learn from some of the oldest societies in
the world; where good leadership demanded extraordinary qualities, such as
mental discipline, enduring physical stamina and the ability to directly
reflect the will of the people.
After all it has
to be said, that in the grandiose arena of globalisation, where
multi-nationals, nongovernmental organisations and the like, super cede
individual leaders and when an international figure comes along with seemingly
rare qualities and attributes, peoples from all societies can universally
identify with them.
For example,
quite possibly the most positive example of an international leader, is Nelson
Mandela.
Although
Mandela’s immediate interests were his country and the future of South Africa, the only one to suffer, was
himself, before being able to carry out what he did to secure a peaceful and
coherent course of action to prevent a civil war in South Africa and bring
about the end to apartheid.
Despite the fact
that people had never seen his face, due to him being in prison for
twenty-seven years, his plight and name had become internationally recognised;
so much so, that the international community through its weight behind the
anti-apartheid movement by condemning the apartheid government.
People would
flock in their millions to hear Mandela speak, because he stood for a genuinely
universal set of values and morals that people expect to see in their leaders,
in any society.
A less positive
international figure who represented the desperate
plight of his people, was Yasser Arafat.
Arafat became the
leader of a stateless people in the face of international hostility. With several odds stacked against him such as
a lack of solidarity among Arab states, western scepticism, and favouritism/bias
toward
Despite his often
abrasive personality, the Palestinian people saw him as their only viable
representative on the international stage, that is, until the Palestinians saw
Arafat as failing them.
At least for his
sympathisers, Arafat represented the suffering of the Palestinians, and on a
constant uphill struggle.
He gained at
least a limited degree of credibility, through his self-compromising addresses
to the UN in 1974 and 1988, which offered peace and cooperation. He made these sacrifices, some could say to
the detriment of the Palestinians, others could say to the detriment of his
pride and what he thought to be fair.
However, his
struggle did not undermine the international community in any way. In fact, he brought to the fore, a desperate
situation which had been ignored internationally for several decades.
In concluding my
illustration of the idea behind international leadership, again, it is
necessary to reiterate the importance of striking the balance between striving
for the extraordinary leadership qualities and abilities, which are now too
often downgraded to mediocrity; as well as the crucial intuition, judgement and
careful consideration a leader must face in times of conflict.
George Bush SR.
is grossly out of touch, when he asserts that the only internationally led coalition, must be led by the
It is this
dangerous and dysfunctional unilateralism, which not only undermines the rest
of the international community, in the name of American interests and will; it
places other leaders and their nation’s interests at a subordinate position,
which can only cause animosity, distrust and a lack of respect.
The
hawkish tone of ‘we will not be beaten or we mean what we say, attitude that
the
Click here to return to
Dawn’s Rants