Keep in mind that THERE IS a global leader RIGHT NOW, simply waiting to make his grand entrance in the world scene. I personally think the SOLUTION to Y2K will be what he brings to the table AFTER a period of total chaos. This will garner him the worship he so greatly desires.
Paris, Monday, August 31, 1998 ...International Herald Tribune
A Scramble for Responses to Crisis
Weakness at the Top Clouds World's Search for Solutions By Nicholas D. Kristof New York Times Service
TOKYO - It is sometimes said that extraordinary times produce extraordinary leaders. But if so, where are they?
Many experts in foreign affairs worry about what they see as a perilous combination of Brobdingnagian challenges to international stability and Lilliputian authority among the political leaders tackling them.
With the Asian meltdown spreading to Russia and undermining Europe, China and Latin America, some experts fret about the risk of a severe global downturn, perhaps another depression, with incalculable
political and military risks. But just as the threats to world order seem unusually grave and complex, leaders in major capitals appear unusually enfeebled.
''Today we are on the verge of massive international dislocations, which may have started in one country, Thailand, but have created the real prospect of global financial instability,'' said Jeffrey Garten, dean of the Yale School of Management.
''The reason this is potentially calamitous is that no one is in charge.''
That is something that President Bill Clinton might discuss with President Boris Yeltsin at their summit meeting in Moscow this week.
But the metaphor of a summit meeting seems inappropriately robust; these days the most fitting location for any meeting of the Group of Seven industrialized nations and Russia might be a hospital ward, where presidents could compare scars and take bets on who will survive longest.
Mr. Clinton is so hobbled by scandal that he cannot even launch missiles against alleged Afghan-based Arab terroristswithout widespread doubts that the missiles were not at least in part an attempt to change the subject.
In Moscow, the uncertainty is not whether Mr. Yeltsin will run again in 2000 (he said last week he would not), but whether he can even finish his present term. In Germany, which has much at risk in Russia's
moribund economy, Helmut Kohl may be unseated in elections next month after 16 years as chancellor of Europe's powerhouse.
Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi of Japan is limping along in his first weeks in office, looking a bit dazed and struggling to show some national leadership for the first time in his 35 years in Parliament.
Even in China, President Jiang Zemin has been humbled by severe floods and by an economy that has been slowing ineluctably.
''Domestic, social and economic forces are overwhelming political leaders everywhere,'' said Michel Oksenberg, a professor of international relations at Stanford University. Mr. Oksenberg argues that the challenges to international order can be addressed only at the political level and that there is no correcting mechanism that will ensure that everything works out well in the end.
''I don't think the world is on auto-pilot,'' he said. ''If so, I'd hate to say where the plane is headed.''
The political scientist Francis Fukuyama published a famous essay in 1989 arguing that the collapse of communism marked ''the end of history.'' The great debates that had animated history, he suggested in that essay and in a subsequent book, had been resolved. But now he has fresh doubts.
''The past few months have been really the first time since the beginning of the decade that I felt that I could really be proven wrong in the argument that I laid out in 'The End of History,''' Mr. Fukuyama mused in a telephone interview.
''There are two things on the horizon that I think are really quite scary: that the Asian crisis could broaden into a global depression, in which case all bets are off about everything; and essentially, that
Russia could fail in its attempt to Westernize and go backward seriously. Both of those may really develop.''
A third and related challenge, one that many experts cite as requiring concentrated efforts by the world's leaders, is the threat of proliferation of nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction.
Some analysts suggest that India may have been successful in surprising the world with its nuclear tests this spring in part because officials were not paying enough attention. And experts also worry about Pakistan as it joins Russia on the list of nuclear powers with disintegrating economies.
What should the world's leaders be doing about these challenges? The answers vary, although everyone agrees that the first priority for people like Mr. Yeltsin and Mr. Obuchi is to stop the self-inflicted injuries that are threatening international stability. Mr. Yeltsin's withdrawal from day-to-day decision-making and his firing of his prime minister and economic team have worsened the collapse of the ruble, and Mr. Obuchi is so weak that six bills vital to Japan's economic restructuring program are stuck in Parliament, aggravating the Asian crisis.
As for the United States, its economy is the envy of the world, but Mr. Clinton has been unable to wrest money from Congress to replenish the International Monetary Fund.
There remains a vigorous debate within America about whether the IMF has done more harm than good, but many foreign officials say that Mr. Clinton's failure to deliver the money has limited the Fund's ability
to combat the crisis in Russia and has, more broadly, added to the unease in global markets. Already, some analysts are blaming Mr. Kohl and Mr. Clinton for not having done more to bail out Russia when its
reformist economic team was still in power.
Moreover, many government officials worry that if the U.S. economy falters, Mr. Clinton will be too weakened to resist protectionist pressures from Congress.
There are apparently several reasons why strong political leaders are scarce today. Some of those
reasons may be more profound than quirks like the strong libido of one president in Washington and the
weak heart of another in Moscow.
''You can deride the personalities involved, but I think something much more fundamental is going on,'' Mr. Oksenberg said.
International public opinion surveys, for example, have shown declining confidence in government in recent years, not just in the United States but also in Canada and most of Europe. Bipartisanship on
foreign affairs has faded. Journalism has become more aggressive and cynical as commentary has
expanded with the technological capacity to deliver it.
Improvements in technology and communications have also cost political leaders their monopolies on information and weaponry, arguably empowering citizens and terrorists at the expense of presidents. The private sector has gained prestige and self-confidence, emerging as a rival force to guide policy.
''If there's a saving grace, a force that could compensate for weak political leadership, it's business,'' said M.Y. Yoshino, a professor at Harvard Business School. ''Still, that can't compensate enough. What can you do when the ruble devalues 10 percent overnight?'' |
