In egalitarian societies, political leaders are elected based on the principles they espouse (Ginsberg, Theodore and Margaret 299). Consequently, the same principles ought to guide each decision they make in the course of their tenure. It is true that even the most principled individual sometimes finds it difficult to take a clear stand on some issues. However, despite the circumstances, leaders ought to maintain moral integrity, which is peculiar to leaders who have well-defined principles. The habit of having well-defined principles saves leaders the trouble of having to explain themselves on every issue that comes up.
Therefore, the political leaders merit on their ability to serve the interests of their electorate and humanity in general (Ginsberg, Theodore and Margaret 210). Presented with highly salient but conflicting choices to make, a leader should always place the overall good of humanity before the interests of any individual, including their own. This way, most of the decisions they make will always enjoy the support of responsible people who share the same noble views with the leader.
The need to choose between the interests of one’s country and the well-being of humanity can be quite challenging. However, voting in favor of the bill was the right choice in this case. Although the need to reduce government spending is crucial, it cannot be greater than the hundreds of lives of innocent people that were at stake. The lives of Americans were not at stake, but America had a role to play because it was responsible for the presence of landmines in Afghanistan.
The decision to back the bill was motivated by two arguments that were very persuasive. The fact there were 10 million undetonated landmines lying all over Afghanistan as pointed out by the International Relations Committee was astounding. It is utterly senseless to leave such a vast number of dangerous gadgets unattended. Considering the danger posed by a single landmine, it would be ridiculous for the Congress to reject the bill. Any move to stop the bill would not have been perceived in any other sense, but as a move to save money at the expense of innocent lives. Once leaders assume office in any country across the world, although many refuse to accept it, they are expected to act in the best interest of humanity (Ginsberg, Theodore and Margaret 471). Therefore, American leaders also have a responsibility to protect the population of the rest of the world.
The argument presented by the Coalition Against Land Mines (CALM), was another compelling reason to vote in favor of the bill. The statistics that this group obtained from the State Department were worrying. The rates people were dying, getting injured or maimed was alarming. Also, the reason behind the presence of landmines in Afghanistan was to liberate the Afghans from the autocratic rule of the Taliban. Therefore, allowing landmines to cause unnecessary anxiety among the same people would be self-defeating.
Further, it would be more expensive to abandon the demining process half way. The funds that had been used to oust the Taliban and initiate the reconstruction process exceeded the additional funds that were needed to complete the removal of the landmines by far. Therefore, a vote in favor of the bill was in the best interest of America as well as humanity in general.
Works Cited
Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J. Lowi and Margaret Weir. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2011. Print.