HARD TIMES No one doubts that these are hard times for many across the globe- in both

the developed and the so called developing countries. Our neighbours in Nigeria for instance, just when they thought they had put the militants in the Niger Delta to sleep are now having to deal with a much deadlier terrorist network known as the Boco Haram (which means against western education). This group is based in the northern part of that country and has been in the news lately for the bombing of the United Nations facility. The young children in Somalia instead of being given food, clothing and shelter are rather being offered guns by the Al-Shabab Rebels as rewards for their dexterity in the recitation of the Koran. Away from Africa, the Greeks are currently up in the creeks seeking not only to cleanse their sullied image as the country that promises to sink the Euro currency but also to calm the boiling tensions within the country especially over issues of employment and access to social services. The leaders of the United States, Italy, Spain, Britain and most European countries are now gloomy like high school students who were unable to either maintain or build upon their academic performances. This comes on the back of announcements by credit rating agencies like Standard and Poors and Moodys downgrading the credit ratings of most of them. Their performance ranged from junk statuses in the case of Ireland, Greece and Portugal over to the deprivation of the United States of the much coveted A++ rating. An Italian opposition leader described the mood of his country as being equal to a relegated team and thus required the manager of the country to give way.

TYPES OF LEADERS Certainly, no one envies leaders at these times and many of them are probably locked up in some board room somewhere trying to fashion means of weathering the storms. Times like these break leaders into two distinct categories. The first group of these leaders tend to adopt isolationist stances, develop inward looking policies and are less concerned about events happening on the world stage. For those in this category, what happens on the international plane is not as relevant as their survival within the domestic setting and thus tends to invest considerable effort and resources in getting things right at home. They invariable push whatever is known as foreign policy to the backburner. The second group of leaders when faced with hardships, unlike the first group of leaders, instead of being inward looking tend to globetrot a lot and engage in aggressive military campaigns, most often beyond their territories. For these leaders, they consider foreign policy adventurisms and the national pride that comes along with it as an alternative means of strengthening their support bases at home and improving their standings in popularity ratings. In other words, what they seek to do is to achieve stunts abroad that would improve their images at home. And one last thing, some of the leaders under this category take delight in unleashing attacks on other states and usually blames them for their present predicaments. I am sure youve realized that most of these states in the first category are mostly leaders from the developing world. And the latter comprise a tall list of western states. But hey, dont be fooled. Some African and leaders from developing countries with fire brand leaders also like to flex their muscles on the world stage as well just to simply send a message home.

WEATHERING THE STORM Take one of the most risk-entertaining presidents in the name of Nicholas Sarkozy for instance. He has a tough re-election bid ahead of him in 2012. His approval rating is just about 25%enough to make him lose an election. And several polls have indeed shown him being in the third position trailing personalities from the National Front and Socialist Parties respectively. And had it not been for Dominic Strauss-Kahns moral weakness with Nassifatou Diallo a chamber maid in the United States of America, Sarkozy by now would have been preparing to bow out of office (this assertion has even led some group of conspiracy theorists to point out that the whole issue of the scandal could have been a setup from France). He would have had a hairsbreadth chance of beating the former IMF Boss who also had built an image not necessarily because of what he has done at home but because of his exploits abroad. But once again, the leading role he [Sarkozy] played in Frances own backyard Ivory Coast and in Libya is sure to inspire some fresh breathe into his atrophying political career- though no one really knows how long that will last. Never forget Frances leading role in Egypt as well being either the first or one of the first nations to be seen as a vociferous advocate of the rights of the people of Northern Africa. If not for anything, this trend of foreign policy is so likely to endear Sarkozy to the large immigrant population living in France, most of who are from North Africa, specifically Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria. Also, for a country whose influence is eroding at a faster rate among its former colonies, it definitely needed to pull out a stunt or two to save face and reassert its influence as a global power.

MORE JUGGLERS Another person who knows best how to juggle with his foreign policy in the face of growing tensions and difficulties at home is the President of Iran- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And he does that so beautifully at the United Nations. It took a while to arrive at this conclusion but some have noted that his tactics mainly lies in answering questions with question and deflecting attention to the United States and Israel anytime he is in a fix. He is one of the few leaders who deny the right of Israel to exist. The rationale behind his fervent attacks on the United States and Israel most especially is to invoke an aura of pride and nationalism within Iran- thereby creating a phantom impression of a great nation in the world of states which is able to rub shoulders and talk tough with some of the worlds most powerful nations. Moreover, with a world fixated on nuclear energy and the prospects of it being used for nonpeaceful purposes, he has been able to draw widespread attention to himself especially as some clouds of suspicion looms over what his real intents are. His enigmatic character also makes things much murkier. In the wake of the disputed presidential elections that took place in his country, he found a smooth launch pad to blame countries in the West, especially Britain for interfering in its domestic affairs. More so, in the recent London riots that took place not too long ago, he reportedly summoned the British Ambassador in his country to explain the British governments violent response to the protest and threatened to close down the embassy due to its poor human rights records. David Camerons statement describing the human rights of the protestors as

phoney concerns made good headlines on the semi-official news channel- Press TV and did not help matters. Another individual leader whose tactics comes close to Ahmadinejad is Zimbabwes Robert Mugabe whose incessant reference to western forces as the source of all ills in his country usually goes a long way in drawing attention away from the hunger and imminent economic difficulties that his countries faces to colonial relics. AFRICAN WORRIES As it has been said, in the battle of two elephants, it is the ground that suffers. And by ground I mean Africa which is obviously at the bottom of the global food chain. The continent has long been a dumping ground for western concerns and problems. Had it not been for their need to find raw materials to power their industries and also spread out their markets, probably the incentives for colonialism would have been less. Had it not been for the need to improve their image in the so called world of nations the scramble which has cost Africa so much in terms of its nationhood would not have taken place. Had it not been for their ideological battles in the name of the cold war in which they sought to promote the spread of one ideology and hinder the other, there would not have been the numerous conflicts that have bedevilled the continent. Indeed, the continent has caught flu several times as a result of the sneeze of these western states and with an ineffective continental body (African Union) which is not able to present a formidable continental position on issues as others is able to, the west tends to have a fields day. It always trails it component states and more often than not has not had any real impact on the issues in Ivory Coast and Libya one hand and Somalia on the other hand where malnourished children and overspent women are common sceneries.

But do you blame the west who would do everything to secure their interest? What if the AU also decided to do same? These are simply hard times and everyone is out there seeking its domestic interests.

By: Samuel Alesu-Dordzi Email: politics_today@yahoo.com