Lagos — This newspaper welcomes the decision by the United States' President, Mr. Barack Obama, to scrap the Bush-era plan for a large missile defence shield in Eastern Europe as a triumph of common sense. It is a victory over the often unwarranted belligerence, wastage of resources and dangerous political brinkmanship of the immediate past administration of George W. Bush.

It is our view that the 21st century will not be defined by the number of nuclear arms a nation possesses, or the number of short-, medium- or long-range ballistic missiles it can deploy in battle, or the amount of chemical and biological weapons in its armoury. Rather, in the new century of a global world, national greatness and clout will increasing be defined by a country's capacity to apply advanced technology and knowledge to raise the standard of living of its citizens and the world's populace. As such technology breaks down more national barriers, the interdependence of the world community will become a categorical imperative in practical terms, rather than a choice, and simultaneously armed conflicts and wars will become anachronistic - the vestiges of a more barbarous era in human evolution.

We recall that in his inaugural address as the 44th President of the USA last January, Mr. Obama had said: "As for our common defence, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake...They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please."

In urging his compatriots and the global community for a new worldview, Obama also said: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and (of) non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth, and because we have tasted the bitter pill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself, and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace."

By his decision to dismantle the US-sponsored missile defence plan in East Europe, a military project that had caused much diplomatic strain between the US and Russia, the old Soviet super power, President Obama has begun matching words with his actions. It's time for a paradigm shift to cope with the chronic challenges of world security and peace, and Mr. Obama is helping to show the way. Unilateral and selfish policies and actions in the conduct of foreign relations must give way to multilateralism and synergistic cooperation. If we preach observance of the rule of law in inter-citizen relationships within a national boundary, why should the same civilised principle not hold in relations between and among nations of the world? Why should might be right between sovereign nations, yet be deplored as uncivilized in inter-personal disputes?

Contrary to the views being expressed by the doctrinaire warmongers in Washington, we hold, therefore, that Mr. Obama has not weakened America's security by adopting a more conciliatory stance on some issues of international relations. Rather, we commend his courage and pragmatic intelligence in appreciating the truth: that courting more friends than creating more enemies for America strengthens that country and reduces world tension. Even in the East Europe case, he has promised new missile defence architecture in Europe, which he said would be "more comprehensive than the previous programme". He says the new system "deploys capabilities that are proven and cost effective, and...sustains and builds" his administration's "commitment to protect the U.S. homeland." If George W. Bush's cowboy brashness and sabre-rattling only ended up isolating America in world diplomacy, escalating global tension and trapping his country in an unsustainable, costly multi-front war, prudence demands that America try a more 'pacifist' approach.

Russia's vociferous objection to the Bush-era missile programme in its backyard was a sound and reasonable response. The USA, in a similar situation, would perhaps have reacted even more aggressively. In the nature of diplomatic relations, Obama's friendly gesture should encourage Russia to reciprocate appropriately. It should be easier, for example, to achieve more unanimity of views in the United Nations' Security Council in the interest of world peace. Currently difficult nations like North Korea and Iran can be more effectively pressured, with such unanimity, to abandon their nuclear-arms ambitions. Other areas of global security concern like the perennial Middle East crises also stand to benefit from greater cooperation between the erstwhile super power arch-rivals.