A fundamental judgment of the Obama presidency should counter proliferation and terrorism effectively as a significantly enhancement to international security.

Although such cooperation will at times be pursued most efficiently and appropriately outside the US system-through unilateral actions or ad hoc, or more formal, interstate coalitions-the United States and other western world should be made very useful, given the wide scope of their superiority and the special authorities and capabilities at their disposal.

Purge Americanism is a sentiment that has been fed and nurtured during the Bush years. Yet, the world still needs American leadership. Yes, we are witnessing the emergence of China, Brazil, and India as important global economic players. Yes, we have watched the humiliating fall of Wall Street's masters of the universe.

Yes, American military prowess has drained away into what Winston Churchill called "the thoughtless deserts of Mesopotamia," and its moral authority has been weakened by events in places from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib.

Yet, the United States remains the world's only superpower, the only nation that matters in every part of the globe, the only country capable of mobilising international action to tackle global problems.

Barack Obama's first task in office must be to return America's economic competitiveness and self-confidence. It will not be easy to rein in overspending and over-borrowing, to restore the real family values of saving, thrift, responsibility and fair reward.

Achieving these goals is bound to involve a greater regard for social equality, after a period in which the very rich have been able to protect a 'Roaring Twenties' lifestyle through cleverly exploiting the 'culture wars'-that is, the populist prejudices of their much poorer fellow citizens.

With America turning away from its global role of borrower of last resort, the rest of us will need to sharpen our competitive edge to sell in other markets. What is imperative is that this should not be impeded by a return to protectionism. A new American president would do well to remember the disastrous consequences of protectionism in the 1920s and 1930s. President Herbert Hoover's failures should be a sanguinary lesson.

We all look to the next U.S. president to re-engage with the world community and international organisations, accepting that even a superpower should accept the rules that apply to others. The United Nations is far from perfect. It needs reform, as do the bodies that provide global economic governance. That will take time. But a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for change is America's commitment to and leadership of the process. Forget the distraction of trying to create an alternative to the UN- the so-called League of Democracies. It won't work.

For more than three decades, Israelis, Palestinians, Arab leaders, and the rest of the world have looked to America to lead the effort to build the road to a lasting peace. In recent years, they have all too often looked in vain. Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy.

That commitment is all the more important as we contend with growing threats in the region-a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of al Qaeda, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah. Now more than ever, we must strive to secure a lasting settlement of the conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security.

To do so, we must help the Israelis identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict and instability. Sustained American leadership for peace and security will require patient effort and the personal commitment of the president of the United States.

Since Iraq and Afghanistan are evidently pretty near intractable problems.Why is it that the US and other western governments do so little to ensure the viability or recovery of tottering or near-failed States, even in our own hemisphere?

For example, the WHO campaign on malaria in many countries is successful: Can models like it, very targeted, and very un-political, un-nationalistic and un-religious, make a difference in other areas that need attention in near-collapsed or collapsed societies (for economic, education and social problems).

All of the current policy makers are Cold Warriors. The next crop of policy makers are of like mind. Even the candidate that most promises to move beyond the ideological divide of the past, Barack Obama, grew up in a polarised world where states were the key actors on the world stage. Are we damned to have leadership that cannot diagnose the problem for the next twenty or thirty years, until those of us born in the late 70s and early 80s are in a position to effect change?

Wonderful, I can totally relate to how you feel. As a naturalised citizen, I too am in awe with that wonderful country and how welcoming it has been. It is the most generous country on the planet and although each wave of immigrant has its own teething problems, it is very easy to assimilate and get absorbed. My heart goes out to those from the Middle East, who unfortunately find themselves demoralised. Hopefully, Obama's presidency will mend and heal the United States.

Mr. Arizona-Ogwu, a commentator on national issues, writes from Port-Harcourt.