The Concept of Philosophy

There is no agreed definition or exact meaning of the word ‘philosophy’ among philosophers.
Chambers Universal Learners’ Dictionary defines philosophy as the search for knowledge
and truth, especially about the nature of man and his behaviour and beliefs. This is born out
of the various interpretations which the usage of the term ‘philosophy’ has been subjected to
by philosophers as well as its day-to-day usage generally. Plato described the philosopher as
a man whose passion is to seek the truth, a man whose heart is fixed for reality. According to
Aristotle, ‘Philosophy is rightly called the knowledge of the truth, while Epicurus described
philosophy as an utility which secures the happy life by means of discussion, and argument.
To William James, Philosophy, in the full sense, is only referring to man, thinking about
generalities, rather than particularities. Martin Heidegger conceived philosophy as
corresponding to the being of being. Jacque Martin sees philosophy as the science which, by
the nature of light of reason, studies the first causes or highest principles of all things.
Philosophy is thus a discipline, the nature and scope of which has constituted a problem to
itself, for it is a critical discipline which does not exempt itself from its own criticism but
applies its critical tool itself. Nevertheless, philosophy can be and has been described in
various ways as hereunder highlighted.
 Philosophy is a rational search for answers to the questions that arise in the mind
when we reflect on human experience.
 Philosophy is a rational search for answers to the basic questions about the ultimate
meaning of reality as a whole and of human life in particular.
Scope of Philosophy
From an empirical perspective, philosophy does not have a single ‘face’. It is multi-facetted.
By this, we mean that all intellectual disciplines emanated from philosophy. Early
philosophers were interested in the nature and workings of the cosmos, a search for
knowledge about the origin of the world and the truth that underlines all human experiences.
Modern Philosophers, however, branched into History, Philosophy, Theology, Psychology,
sociology, physiology, Anatomy and Sciences. Philosophy is derived from two Greek words,
Philo and Sophia which translate to “Love for Wisdom.” Philosophy is the systematic and
logical arrangement of thoughts and ideas. In philosophy, one has to learn to be critical.
Branches of Philosophy
These could be summed up thus: Epistemology, logic, metaphysics, ethics, Political
philosophy, and Logic. Epistemology

1
This is the study and the theory of knowledge, centred on the objective and scientific
knowledge. The term ‘Epistemology’ is derived from two Greek words. Episteme and Logos
meaning “Knowledge and Theory” respectively. The usual questions in Epistemology are –
How valid and reliable is human knowledge? What do we know of, and what are the limits of
human knowledge? Is knowledge entirely relative to be objective? We have two types of
knowledge:
• Apriori knowledge
• Aposteriori knowledge
Apriori Knowledge (as championed by Rationalists)
This is the knowledge acquired independently of experience (innate ideas) e.g. breast feeding
baby. The rationalists deny all knowledge which is derived from sense experience and
maintains that reason alone can attain knowledge without reference to experience.
Aposteriori Knowledge (as championed by Empiricists)
This is the knowledge that is derived from experience. The empiricists are those that claim
that all human knowledge is derived from experience and that there can be no knowledge
which is not derived from sense experience. We derive knowledge through our five senses,
which are;
Sense of sight
• Sense of taste
• Sense of smell
• Sense of hearing
• Sense of feeling
Logic
This deals with the fundamental laws of thinking and reasoning. It is the ability to think
logically, consistently, systematically, and coherently, though, not necessarily correctly in
real life. The formal object in logic is the truth of proposition of statements but the term
‘truth’ in the case of logic is purely formal. Logician asks only for what the truth of one
proposition implies, with regards to another proposition, independent of whether the truth of
the formal is objective or merely formal.
Metaphysics
This is the theory of the Universe, derived from Greek expression: “Metaphysica” meaning
thinking beyond the physical realm. Metaphysics has its main aim in the construction of an
all embracing global scheme. Metaphysics is the discipline which studies a being precisely in
its aspect as being. It is the study of the ontology status of phenomena; the study of
2
constitutive element of the universe, the science that studies what is or what constitutes
reality.
Ethics
Ethics, like philosophy, has no universal definition. It could be;
• a branch of philosophy which deals with morality of human conducts
• a branch of philosophy which studies the norms of human behaviour.
• the systematic study of fundamental principles of the moral law.
• the normative science of human conducts. Ethics is a science in the wider sense and not in
the narrow sense.
Ethics & Morality
The relationship is similar to that of logic and thinking or religion and morality. The latter is
the basic form of the former ethic which pre-supposes that we already have a sense of
morality.
The purpose of Ethics
The study of ethics is for the purpose of ensuring that human behaviour conforms to norms
and standards of the society.
Political Philosophy
Unlike political science, it is a systematic study of the society with a view to making the
society, not only just, but egalitarian.
Concept of Great Personalities of Peace
Every Nation-state has an array of great personalities but each one’s services to mankind
defer. Naturally, everyone would wish to be regarded as being great, as the deepest principle
in human nature is the craving to be appreciated. For example, George Washington wished to
be called “His Mightiness, “The President of the United States while Christopher Columbus
pleaded for the title “Admiral of the ocean and Viceroy of India”. Similarly, Catherine the
great refused to open letters that were not addressed to “Her Imperial Majesty”. The above
very few examples were in consonance with some humorous utterances of a Nigerian federal
minister in the 1st Republic, Chief T.O.S. Benson who-used to say, thus: “if you wish to be
great, you must be prepared to finance greatness” – and to him, hard work, humility, sincerity
of purpose, exemplary leadership qualities, are some of the demands of a great leader. (Oral
Interview with Pa Ayo Biney No 40, Folarin Street, Mushin. June 18 1968).

Since the intention of the course is focused on world peace, due to the globalization of
world’s political, economic, social, cultural and other spheres of life, a great personality of

3
peace is, in the opinion of both international and municipal laws, an international personality.
International personality also denotes the status of an entity with rights and duties under
international law. Such an entity, in the opinion of John Ademola Yakubu is per force a
subject of international law. International personality could be individuals who have attained
such status as to fall into the criteria of those that could be focused in identifying social
problems. For example, when the President of a State speaks, irrespective of whether one
agrees with him or not, one listens. When the Pope is speaking, the whole world will tend to
hear him before forming opinion. When a Nobel Laurel speaks, or the Sultan speaks, people
will be eager to hear what they wish to say before forming opinion. There are others within
this bracket. When the secretary General of the U.N. speaks on any global matter, the global
community listens. For a rather long time, it was assumed that only states alone are the
exclusive subject of international law and that states, in that circumstance, could be
international personalities that could exercise rights under international law. However,
exceptional instances of individuals or non-state entities have emerged. Similarly, there are
international institutions that are accorded the status of international personality such as the
United Nations, International Labour Organisation, N.A.T.O. World Bank E.E.C., A.U,
ECOWAS and so on. These organizations perform various duties of building peace and they
also form the structure upon which individual great Personalities of peace rely on to nurture
any peace-initiative.

The analogy between great personalities of peace and international personalities of peace is
that while great personalities of peace are physically identified human beings in various
calling, international personalities of peace are individuals, state, non-state actors as well as
international institutions that are accorded the status of international personality. Both great
personalities of peace and international personalities of peace are so designated because of
their activities towards the maintenance and enhancement of world peace and order. They
serve the purpose of pre-conflict, as well as post-conflict peace-building processes.
2. Introduction
In African setting particularly, the homogeneity of family issues are regarded as non-
negotiable. Quite regularly, we often hear philosophical sayings like. It is God’s wish; no leaf
will drop from a tree without God’s knowledge; God gives and takes and many similar
things, just to ensure a win – win situation. Basically, we are expected to be familiar with
these philosophical approaches in conflict resolution. By extension, have a good grasp of
their possibilities when weighed against their strengths and weaknesses.

4
Concept of Philosophies in Conflict Resolution
This has to do with intractable conflict, either at National or International levels, which
conventional method of conflict resolution have left in limbo but which invocation of
philosophies, such as putting the issue before the Supreme Being; only Him knows why; He
knows best; let’s leave everything to God, and so forth, have assisted in either dousing by
building peace within the combatants or have led to win-win situation. The following are the
various approaches through which philosophies is applied in conflict resolution.
1. Conciliatory Approach of Philosophies in Conflict Resolution
This is a situation in which a third party initiates processes that could culminate in bringing
the parties in conflict together through various peace-building methods. The third party
examines what is on ground, improves methods of communication and ensures through
appropriate philosophies, that sentiment and emotions are not allowed to submerge
community solidarity. The conflict parties are helped to realize that their best interest lies in
being each other’s keeper. When this philosophy percolates, then, a solid platform for conflict
resolution and management must have been laid.
2. Political Approach While the conciliatory approach relies on the principle of controlled
emotional involvement and non-judgemental attitude in pursuance of a win-win situation, the
political approach exhibits traits of an empire with vested interest. That personality with
vested interest, otherwise known as the third party goes about resolving the conflict based on
his ulterior motive to maximise the fruits of the negotiation. It is that third party, who, at one
time or the other, created what brought the conflict about, and later master minded the
resolution processes. The protracted conflict amongst many others came into this focus. Some
of the methods that the third party invokes include, but not limited to, sympathizing with both
sides, empathizing with a particular side, leading to threats and eventual capitulation.

Although, these aforementioned approaches tend to work in an atmosphere of threat to global

peace, the recipients used to rely on philosophical disputation in accepting the end result. The
peacemaker will fly the kite of having the sympathy of the warring factions and entreaties
will be given both sides to secure peace. If that did not work, the power broker will empathise
with a party to the conflict. This is usually with a view to making such fraternised party
accept the comradeship of the power broker while the power broker creates the spirit of
intimidation on the other party. That threat compels the weak or other party in the conflict to
succumb to alluding their fate to philosophy of life. This again reminds us that philosophy is

5
a rational search for answers to the questions that arise in the mind when we reflect on human
experience.

Another method of political approach, in the face of philosophical conflict resolution is a

situation whereby a supposedly weaker party in conflict is being cajoled by the power-broker
to give peace a chance. Although their demand was in order, but if they agree to a mutual
resolve to avert violence, in the spirit of life expediency, they will laugh last. This is a system
laden with intimidation which the weaker party dare not ignore. They will see it as part of
philosophy of life, because those who fight and run away live to fight again. However, such
invocation of political approach, through biased invocation of philosophy is always counter-
productive.
3. Judicial Approach
By its nature, this is a conflict resolution method that results in a zero-sum or win-lose
situation. A maxim says that we do not become friends after you have forced me to face
prosecution before a law court. As adversarial as court processes could be, there have been
instances where philosophies have had upper hand in burying the hatchet.
4. Family setting Approach
The homogeneity of family setting is always seen as the basis upon which community
harmony hinged on in African tradition. It is usually an accepted norm that conflicts must
ensue and one of the parties must be the aggressor. The method of approaching settlement
must not aggravate an already tensed situation but to intervene in such a manner as to ensure
that the mutuality pre-existing is not only continuing but must continue with vigour and style.
Olaoba, O.B. (2002: 54), commenting on extra-judicial methods in African society had this to
say. The judicial procedures upon which justice is administered are crucial to the African
legal heritage. In African societies, restoration of peace and reconciliation form the basic
tenets of law.

Besides tribunals, King’s courts and religious cults, there are other extra-judicial processes
upon which law and order thrive in African societies. These extra-judicial processes are such
methods which are socially accepted and endorsed by members of the society. They are
beyond the institutionalized legal processes.

Olaoba is alluding to the invocation of philosophies in African setting which emphasizes

keeping alive and stronger family ties and down play negative methods that could detract
family togetherness. The solidarity of the family is never toyed with. Each African society

6
has its culture, tradition and norms. Africans tend to believe highly in the Supreme Being and
ancestors. This belief goes along with philosophies often attached to situations by Africans
which have doused tension in very difficult times. Olaoba, (2002:55) had this to say: in the
belief of African people the Supreme Being is upheld as a perfect judge. For instance, among
the Yoruba, He is given the attribute: “Adake dajo (A silent judge). Similarly, there is the
saying Amokun jale, bi oba aiye ko ri o, oba oke nwo o”

(He that steals in concealment, if the earthly king does not see you, the heavenly king is
watching you from above). These are very strong invocations of philosophies distinctly
embedded in African culture and geared towards being each other’s keeper. They pacify
aggrieved nerves to take things easy instead of taking legal processes or other adversarial
steps.
Scholars and philosophers as well as people of letters have alluded to African and European
traditions as containing philosophical inputs which ensure the happy reunion of conflict-torn
communities. For example, Shakespears drama, the novels of Charles Dickens, the essays of
Voltaire, contain brilliant insights into social systems and relationships. In African setting,
when explaining a relationship, it is so common to have statements like: “My mother who is
your mother; “our father, who is your father”, my mother’s son, your son”; just to assume
that we are all homogenous. In short, while offences are punished in accordance with societal
norms, philosophies are employed to nip the nagging conflict in the bud. Above all, as opined
by Olaoba (2004:54) keep alive, and in stronger perspective family ties, and down play
negative methods that could detract family togetherness.

Philosophical Diplomacy by a Minority Group to the Dominance and Discrimination of

the Majority Group
Introduction
There are various methods of conflict management which are quite effective in either
eliminating or transforming prevailing tense situation. In the words of Zartman (1989:8),
conflict management refers to the elimination, neutralisation of conflict from erupting into
crises or to cool a crisis in eruption. Similarly, Otite, O and Albert, I.O., (1999:11), drummed
it further home that conflict management is rather more elaborate and wider in conception
and application. Both definitions are in tandem with regular conflicts that arise between
groups or communities, especially in developing economies of the third world countries. It is
evident that the actions of the dominant society usually define the patterns of inter-group

7
relations because such dominance gives them the power to dictate the pace of action for the
minority group.

Further, it is an established fact that human relationships are a two-way traffic, affirmed by
Newton’s third law of motion that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Consequently, the actions of the dominant group will likely be influenced by the nature of the
response these actions elicit from the minority group. This unit will, therefore, look into the
role of philosophical diplomacy exhibited by the minority group in the face of psychological
reactions a minority group could develop which could lead to a win – win solution in any
ensuing scenario.
Minority Response to Group Dominance
There are various ways open to the minority group when responding to the aggression of the
majority. Among the various methods are (a) to see the issue with the spirit of equanimity,
with the belief in the philosophical disposition that at a certain time in one’s life, an incident
which will change one’s course in life must occur. Such belief lends credence to life of
transformation if one could persevere. It could also be seen as passive acceptance. Other
methods could be through aggressive response, self segregation, or acculturation.

Spirit of Equanimity
This is a situation where the minority invokes philosophical method of temporarily accepting
the situation it finds itself, with the hope of a better morrow. The minority adopts this view,
to avoid what could amount to committing either suicide or hara-kiri. They passively
accommodate themselves to their subordinate position and settle down, hoping for not too
distant emancipation, as long as they live. An example of passive acceptance is Uncle Tom,
the Negro servant in the novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin as reported by Jeneth B. Clark, 1965, in
his book. The Psychology of the Ghetto, New York; published by Harper and Row. Uncle
Tom accepted his situation that he would always be a Whiteman’s servant and on that basis,
tried his best to behave in a way that would make his servitude as comfortable for him as
possible. He was obedient, caused no trouble and faithful to his master’s interests.

For his compliance, he was richly rewarded as he was able to achieve most of what he would
have attained as a free man. This is a philosophy that goes with an African proverb that he
who fights and runs away lives to fight another day. The implication is that accepting one’s
sub ordinance does not condemn one to a perpetual slavery. We have seen how oppressed
minorities developed quite helpful methods of dealing with members of a dominant society

8
which eventually led to swinging the situation to their advantage. Humility, in the face of
naked display of vanity by the dominant group could help. Over-simplicity by saying sir, sir,
several times to the vaguery demands of the oppressor could also help. Those traits were
exhibited by the Kenyans in the initial exploitation of their land as the displaced Kenyans
even agreed to work as labourers on their farms appropriated by the white settlers. That
servile pretence enabled them to understand the nitty-gritty of the white settlers before the
inevitable Mau Mau uprising which paved the way for the Jomo-Kenyatas to mount the
political ladder of the Kenyan nation.

As earlier mentioned, the philosophy behind the passive acceptance of a subordinate status is
to avoid a situation whereby an anxiety for quick results may prevent the realization of
having any result at all and that could happen unless there is an absolute caution. It is quite
true that acceptance may be an easy response for a minority group to make, because it
promotes inter-group harmony, but it is quite understandable that those who adopt it have
psychological re-actions. Among such reactions may be self-hatred and a wide range of
pathological emotional responses. It could lead to strains due to concealment of their inner
feelings. It leads to self-limitation despite abundant opportunities.

However, the positive side of this policy is the belief in the philosophy of a better morrow. It
could even be in the form of a self-fulfilling prophesy if one is convinced that at a certain
period in life, things go one way which could change for better thereafter. The perseverance
of millions of Africa’s captured as slaves, and drafted to the then New World, otherwise
called the Americas, led to the 13th Amendment of the American constitution, known as
Proclamation of emancipation of slaves. By the same vein, the 14th amendment allowed the
Blacks to vote in all elections in America while the 15th amendment gave the blacks, not
only the right to vote but to be voted for. What happened as a child’s play in the 1860’s with
the Emancipation proclamation has now led to the emergence of the very first Black
President in American history ever to occupy the white house in the 21st century. Passive
acceptance is not without its reward.

Aggressive Response There have been instances when dominance has been met with
aggressive responses. This could be in the form of physical violence. The humanitarian
tragedy between the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda as well as that of the Darfur crises in
southern Sudan are vivid examples. From all indications, the above examples are quite
dangerous as they resolved nothing but aggravated an already bad situation. They led to

9
gnashing of teeth and possible extermination of a minority group by the savagery majority
group. In a situation life this, many options are still open to the minority. First, it is natural for
you to know that in any community, there are both minority and majority groups. The
aggrieved minority must look for an effective but safer method of expressing their grievances
and commonest in that category are verbal and philosophical expressions. They may shout
threats at passers-by or write them on pamphlets for distribution, or even, walls. Through that
method, the minority group will be displaying the detestable acts of the dominant group to the
public in bad light, which could also invite sympathy from the members of the dominant
group. Charles S. Johnson, (1943:303), in his book: Patterns of Negro segregation; New
York; quoted Harper a driver from a minority group while responding to the misdemeanor of
the dominant group thus:

“I drive in a way that makes it look like I’ll run over them if they walk in front of me when I
have the right. I act like I don’t see them. I have had some of them to curse at me for this, but
I just laugh at them and keep on driving”.

Equally common as aggressive response are those involving reactions to work attitude by the
minority in the service of the majority. The minority could deliberately create a costly
accident that could ruin crops, livestock or even properties of the employer who is a member
of the dominant group to drive home his resentment of the dominant group. The adversarial
effect of the aggressive response is always discovered in areas whereby the aggrieved
transfers his aggression even to members of his minority group, who himself is equally
powerless.

Self-Segregation There are instances when a minority group, on their volition, keeps-off
from the dominant society. They assume the incompatibility existing between the minority
and the majority group could not be resolved and never attempts to explore any means of
contact. This is an avoidance policy which does not solve a situation because no matter how
long, what is being swept under the carpet will pinch the foot and ache. Confronting the
problem, following due process of conflict resolution, will ameliorate the pains in the
scenario. Johnson, again, quoting a member of a minority group who chose to adopt
avoidance in his relationship with the whites said thus:

”I found that the best way to get along with white folks is to just be pretty careful and come
in contact with them as little as possible. There are times when you have to take a lot of
things. Those things that you can avoid, you ought to. I am not a white folk’s nigger, and I try

10
to keep out of trouble, I know, though that I am in the south, and I known they can make it
hard for me, so I just try to attend to my business and see if I can dodge a lot of trouble”.

By saying he is not a Whiteman’s nigger, he does not accept he is inferior to the Whiteman.
However, interaction gives way to understanding. Even segregation takes place within a
homogenous group in form of class differences. There is residential segregation, occupational
segregation. However, much as these types of self-segregation could lead to compatibility,
the most extreme method of self-segregation is known as separation. This is a system where
the minority group aspires to set up, a totally independent society of its own. It takes several
forms; it could be created, within the geographical and political bounds of the dominant
society or it may decide to migrate or may call for partition. A great but rather sour point to
recall was the persecution faced by the Jews both in the Eastern and Western parts of the
world that compelled the rich Austrian Jews to mobilize their resources in search of a
separate settlement for the Jews.

Having being declared persona-non-grata by the dominant group in the Eastern and Western
Europe, the journey to mount Zion which was tagged their philosophical home, began in
earnest. Their dream manifested when Palestine was partitioned and the Jewish state of Israel
came into being. Although, this is one of the very few successful examples of separation, the
ripples thereafter have turned the Middle East into the melting point of intense adversarial
conflict. Separation also had taken place in Liberia, an African country to where the
American government transported freed American slaves without any pre-adequate
arrangement for them to go there. It was the first back-to-Africa movement by about 1825.

It was a very difficult experiment both for the American Negroes who found acclimatization
harrowing, as well as having problems getting along with the native tribes already living
there who were not enthusiastic about the whole scheme. Those on ground considered them
an unwanted, imported population lording it over the indigenous inhabitants. The eventual
unfolding scenario which blew open after the first Liberian Coup and the emergence of
Samuel Doe, together with its fall-out are linked to the absolute separatism being discussed.
Ironically, in the 1960s, a new back-to-Africa movement was initiated by black Americans
who bought land, in countries of central Africa and established agricultural and handicraft
communes there. They did that without first considering the great differences between
African and American culture. Tom Mboya, according to the New York Times Magazine of
13th July, 1969: 30-40, was quoted as having warned American Negroes that Africa cannot

11
be the solution to their problems. Be that as it may, history has shown that separatism has
proved a difficult policy to convert into a satisfactory reality, even though, some minorities
see it as their only hope of ever achieving equality.

Acculturation This is another type of response to dominance when a minority group member
tries to blend into the majority by assimilating the cultural characteristics of that dominant
group. This include learning the language, adaptation to the dressing and customs after which
it would be easy to mimic the entire ways of life of the dominant group. However, instances
abound where a minority group, racially determined, detest acculturation, however minimal.
When, in 1958, Charles de-Gaulle’s Government in France ordered a plebiscite to determine
whether the French’s African colonies world assimilate or not, through Yes or No vote,
Sekou Toure’s Guinea voted No and refused to ‘frenchivise’. That pride and respect Guinea
had for African culture was the catalyst that made Charles de Gaulle to descend on Guinea by
ordering out of Guinea all French personnel serving the Government of Guinea. The country
was thrown into serious confusion; Electricity was put off, medical personal withdrawn,
Airport grounded and it was a beleaguered nation for 72 hours.

At the end of it all, Sekou Toure bluntly refused to yield inspite of very serious odds. His
countrymen and women stood solidly behind him for his noble stand while African
governments, most of whom were still colonies of foreign powers gave their support for his
stand. The most outstanding support came from Dr. Kwame Nkrumah’s government in
Ghana which sent in qualified personnel to restore the incapacities wrecked on Guinea
Conakry by Charles de Gaulle’s French Vandals. Today, history is remembering eloquently
the noble resistance of Sekou Toure against French’s forced acculturation.

However, one man’s food could be another’s poison within a minority group that despised
acculturation. There could be a certain group that racial and physical characteristics are not
strongly marked. Such group could adopt a terminology called “passing” as they may wish to
be seen as members of the dominant group. Instances of name change, from local to one with
foreign characteristic, change in nationality, structures of foreign ideas, are indices of
“passing”. What is significant in the scenario is that the decision of a certain group to
acculturate, painful as it seems, as they may lose their heritage in the process, could be laid
on the door step of philosophy of life. It is common to have people say: Mr. J.J. of so, so
country, mistakenly born in country A or B etc. What we have been saying here have their
places in the philosophical diplomacy of life. Irrespective of the method adopted, life has no

12
duplicate and as the saying goes, life is about survival of the fittest. We are birds of passage
and philosophy of life tells us that the world will not stop, because an actor, no matter how
great or proficient has taken his exist; the world will go on.

Some Aspects of International Laws of War Emphasizing the Significance of

Philosophies and Great Personalities of Peace

Great personalities of peace could only effectively invoke philosophical dispositions to

resolve conflict when adequately protected by certain aspects of both municipal and
international laws. Instances abound when ambiguity of both laws led to a disregard to well-
meaning intervention by great personalities of peace.

Backup laws on philosophies and Great personalities of Peace

Without any known norm, custom or back-up law, at either municipal or international level,
the activities of those who have emerged as great personalities of peace could not have
materialized. Ancient history has produced many philosophers, theologians, and astrologers
who propounded their philosophies in order to secure the much needed peace. However, as
nature abhors vacuum, the state of global politics has transformed tremendously that however
good the intention of an intervener could be, he must first be knowledgeable about what the
municipal law as well as the international law say about his role. This is quite expedient
because last year’s wisdom may be this year’s acrimony.

Ademola Yakubu and Femi Wewe, both legal luminaries within academic confines, were
seeking answers to the ambivalence in some quarters about whether or not international law
is really law in the face of what they described as manifestations of the in-effectiveness of the
law in the enforcement problems on the international scene. Going further, they cited an
example of a situation where a combat-aircraft, belonging to a particular state successfully
carried out an ariel raid on the cites of another state as the United States did on 15th April
1986 to the Libyan cites of Tripoli and Benghazi. They raised this issue because of the
difficulties in the way of seeking redress by the victim state, as well as the unilateral action of
the aggressor. Because of that and other unilateral actions by some states against the others,
both scholars are of the view that such actions by certain seemingly powerful states against
the weaker ones have raised doubts in the minds of the observers of global affairs about the
efficacy of the tenets of international law.

13
Those in that school of thought opine that international law is nothing but a code of rules of
conduct of moral force only. Austin, also was of the view that law that should relate to
communes emanating from a discriminate sovereign legislative authority. He is of the view
that any law not proclaimed by a sovereign state should be seen only as rules of moral or
ethical validity only. He further contended that international law is nothing but positive
“international morality” only analogous to the rules binding a club or society or opinions or
sentiments current among nations generally.

Expatiating further, Yakubu rekindled our hope on the efficacy of International law when he
reminded us about the view of Akehurst, that the problem of the enforcement of sanctions is
somewhat intractable under international law because of its peculiar characteristics. While
admitting that municipal laws emanate from sovereign states, international laws, though there
is no centralized executive authority, but present day developments have created
mass/myriads of international legislations as a result of law-making treaties and conventions.
The prevalence of international conference or through existing international organs is
indicative. The charter that created the United Nations, drawn up in san Franciso in 1945 is
based on the legality of international law. The statute of the international court of justice
annexed to the charter gives the International Court of Justice (I.C.J.) power to decide, in
accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, in accordance with
Article 38. Moving a step further, in appreciation of what role great personalities of peace
could play in conflict situation for the mutual benefit of mankind, Article 51 of the United
Nations made provision for remedy under self help provision. It is envisaged that when the
use of self defence against armed attacks is resorted to, the emergence of international
personalities to mediate could not be ruled out. When Israel renewed her offensive against
Palestine, quoting U.N. resolution, Palestine responded quoting another U.N. resolution. The
scenario generated world attention, one of which led to the intervention of great personalities
of peace, particularly the Camp David Accord of 1978, led by ex-U.S. President Jimmy
Carter.

Some of the criteria reinforcing the legality of international laws like habit, conscience,
morality, affection and tolerance account much for obedience. For example, treaties create
laws unto themselves since agreements must be kept. It is not in the interest of states to break
the law so created because international law facilitates international co-operation. As a
student, you need to know how treaties create laws. By this concept, “treaties” are mutual
agreements, freely entered into by various sovereign states, through their Heads of State or

14
accredited representative in areas such as political, economic, commercial, social, cultural
and various scientific and technical matters. In view of the Vienna convention on the laws of
treaties of 1969, which became enforceable in 1980, states that had entered into treaties and
still believed in its contents were duly required to ratify and deposit same with the United
Nations after which such treaties became obligatory on the parties. In a nutshell, it is
incumbent on the Head of State of each state to keep their respective legislative houses
informed of such treaties as they must be carried along.

As one of the main proponents of this unit is to highlight the need for correlation between
municipal and international laws, when treaties are entered into between governments, it
takes the colour of an international agreement but before it could be so deemed enforceable,
each state must submit the treaty it entered into with another government to its state
parliament for ratification. For example, in a case decided by the supreme court of Nigeria, in
Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 4SCNJ400, it was decided as follows;

 The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the
maintenance of international peace and security, shall first of all scale a solution by
negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to
regional agencies, or arrangement, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
 The Security Council shall, when it deems it necessary, call upon the parties to settle
their dispute by such means: negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration,
judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful
means of their choice.
The above listed methods of conflict resolution could only be meaningful and focused
towards the promotion of global peace settlement handled by men and women of honour,
men and women who would not lie, men and women who are above sentiment and emotional
disposition. Indeed, it is within that context that great personalities of peace do emerge. For
an understanding of what each method entails, a brief analysis of each step is hereunder given
below

Negotiation
Negotiation is a peaceful way of ending a conflict or a situation that may lead to conflict.
This is usually done through diplomatic means. Schmid, A.P. (2000:55) in Thesaurus and
Glossary of early warning and conflict prevention terms defined Negotiation as “a bilateral or
multilateral communication technique to manage conflicting interests through direct dialogue

15
between representatives of the parties in a dispute or conflict. Negotiation is a standard
diplomatic technique used by states in peacetime to harmonise their interests, or to live with
their differences by taking into account respective needs and power potential.

Berridge, (1995: 119) says Negotiation, in international politics, is a technique of regulated

argument, which normally occurs between delegations of officials representing states,
international organizations, or other agencies. It takes place with a view to achieving one or
other of the following objectives: identification of common interest, and agreement on a joint
or parallel action in their pursuit; recognition of conflicting interests and agreement on
compromise; or more often than not, some combination of both.

Yet, Fisher/Ury, (1983:33, 36) defined Negotiation as “A process of communicating back and
forth for the purpose of reaching a joint decision… a negotiation is not a debate. Nor is it a
trial. Not to be lost in the myriads of definition, international Alert, (1996, 111:53) defined
Negotiation as “Talks between conflicting parties who discuss ideas, information and options
in order to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Initially, at least, negotiations may not be
face-to-face.
Enquiry
The terminology implies a critical examination of issues which brought about a dispute,
because, where the facts are properly established, a resolution, which will be acceptable to
both sides will be easily reached. Issues that create conflict between nations are multifarious
but the most constant and physical is boundary dispute. For instance, the United Nations
General Assembly, by a resolution adopted on 18th December, 1867, upheld the utility of the
method of impartial fact-finding as a method of peaceful settlement of issues. While the U.N
admonished members to adopt that method, it asked the Secretary-General to prepare a list of
experts in that regard whose services could be used by agreement with respect to a dispute.

As a corollary to the above, emphasizing the significance of great personalities of peace, a

salutary Resolution on Peaceful Settlement of International disputes was adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations on 12, December, 1974 and went ahead to approve
the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful settlement of international disputes in 1982 which
even has the effect of superseding the resolution made on 12th December, 1974.
Good Office
This is a method through which an individual, a state, or an international organ, acting as a
third party, may assist in ensuring an amicable settlement of a dispute. The use of good

16
offices has the effect of bringing the disputing parties together and ensures settlement in
general terms. It does not involve actual participation in the negotiation or the conduct of an
enquiry that takes care of everything involved in the dispute. What this method emphasizes is
the possibility of working out a solution with respect to the dispute. Many instances when
resorts to the use of good offices were applied by the UN abound. Dag Hammarsk-Joeld, a
former secretary General of the United Nations was dispatched to Congo Leopoldville early
1960’ to use his office to intervene in the Congo crisis. Pandit Nehru, the former Prime
Minister of India, Tafawa Balewa, the former Prime Minister of Nigeria, Emperor Haile
Selasie, The Ethiopian Monarch, General Ankrah, former Ghanaian Head of State, Chief
Olusegun Obasanjo, former President of Nigeria, Nigerian Government – (Liberian & Siera-
Leone conflicts), Jimmy Carter, the former President of the United States of America, and
many others, have, at one time or the other been asked to use their good offices to resolve
conflicts that were adversarial to global peace.
Mediation
Goodpaster, (1997:203-204), quoting Chr. W. Moore, (1996:54) in Schmid (2000:54) defined
mediation as “A problem-solving negotiation process in which an outsider, impartial, neutral
party works with disputants to assist them to reach a satisfactory negotiated agreement.
Unlike judges or arbitrators, mediators have no authority to decide the dispute between the
parties; instead, the parties empower the mediator to help them resolve the issues between
them. The assumption… is that a third party will be able to alter the power and social
dymamics of the conflict relationship by influencing the beliefs and behaviour of individual
parties, by providing knowledge or information or by using a more effective negotiation
process and thereby helping the participants to settle contested issue.

Similarly, Goodpaster (1977:204) defined mediation as a “form of conflict management

whereby a skilled and/or powerful third party (state, international organization, Non-
Governmental Organisation (NGO) acts as a go-between to facilitate communication between
conflict parties that consent to the initiative, to bring about a partial solution (e.g. exchange of
prisoners) or a settlement. The initiative for mediation usually comes from the outside or
from the weaker of the conflicting parties. The mediator is not always an impartial, neutral
party but sometimes someone with the capacity and intent to bring his weight (the so-called
“mediation leverage”) to bear on the situation. Mediation is a general, informal, voluntary,
non-legal, non-forceful and non-binding but co-operative, forward looking and interest based
form of conflict management.

17
Demola Yakubu opined that mediation, like good offices, involves the use of, or bringing a
third party to intervene with respect to a conflict. The position of a mediator is more elaborate
than that of the use of good offices. The mediator, unlike a party tendering good offices,
participates in the negotiations and directs the way for a peaceful or amicable settlement of
the dispute. Some conclusions may be reached in the process or some suggestions made, but
generally, such suggestions are not binding on the parties. Such was the situation with the
role of Ghana in the settlement of the dispute between Gowon and Ojukwu usually referred to
as the ABURI ACCORD. Much as Ghana tried in the mediation to avert a full-scale war in
Nigeria, which the parties agreed to at the mediation caucus, both reneged on getting back to
Nigeria. The mediatory role of the United States in the Arab-Israeli conflict, resulting in the
1978 Camp David Accord is another of the many examples of the significance of great
personalities of peace, backed up by both municipal and international laws.

Conciliation
The international law institute defined conciliation in 1961 thus:
a method for the settlement of international disputes of any nature according to which a
commission set up by both parties, either on a permanent basis or an ad-hoc basis to deal
with a dispute, proceeds to the impartial examination of the dispute and attempts to define the
terms of a settlement susceptible of being accepted by them or of according to the parties,
with a view to its settlement, such aid as they may have requested.
Similarly, Judge Mainly O. Hudson, in 1944, defined conciliation as
a process of formulating proposals of settlement after an investigation of the facts and an
effort to reconcile opposing contentions, the parties to the dispute being left free to accept or
reject the proposals formulated.

U.S. Commission, (1981: 105) defined conciliation as “the least structured of the four major
conflict resolution techniques. Unlike a negotiator, arbitrator, or mediator, a conciliator
frequently works in pre-negotiation situations to establish and maintain communication
among disputants and, if appropriate, to move them into more formal bargaining formats.
Conciliators may employ fact-finding and observation techniques and help disputes to be
resolved informally: in addition, conciliators play critical roles in helping agreements to be
kept, and in reconciliation, efforts that prevent future conflicts after agreement are reached”.
Akinboye, S.O. and Ottoh, F.O. (2005: 156) opined that “Concilliation… is designed to
encourage a high degree of participation and flow of information. This is acceptable when
there is no previous commitment, that is, when it does not infringe on the right of parties to

18
accept or reject any proposals. In order words, there will be no imposition of any decision or
proposal”.

Arbitration
According to Hamzeh, N.U.18-19; Kleiboier, (1997:9), “Arbitration is a traditional method of
peaceful dispute settlement whereby a single arbiter or a court of arbitration arrives at a final
judgement. The arbiter is an authoritative and legitimate third party (tribunal or eminent
person), superior in strength to the parties to the dispute. The arbiter adjudicates the conflict
between parties, who are voluntarily requesting a verdict. The recommendation reached by a
(neutral) arbiter after having examined the merits of each case is considered binding”. In the
view of international Alert, (1996:111: 53-54), Arbitration is
“When conflicting parties present their cases to a third party, who makes a judgment of the
case which includes a decision on the rights and wrongs of the cases presented, and how the
conflict should be settled. Arbitration may be ‘binding’ (the parties agree in advance to
accept the third party’s judgment) or ‘non-binding’ (where they agree only to consider it,
sometimes as an aid to negotiation). The third party is a person or organisation whose
authority the conflicting parties recognize. The arbitrating role of the third party is different
from third-party facilitation… The essential difference (with negotiation) is that in
arbitration, the party main or only communication is with the third party arbitrator on whose
authority they rely”.

Judicial Settlement
Hamzeh (n.d: 24) as recorded by Schmid, A.P. (2000: 52) stated that Judicial settlement is a
“Legal mode of pacific dispute termination, e.g. by the international court of Justice, based on
a determination of the rule governing the case in controversy. Hamzeh notes that “Although
arbitration and judicial settlement are akin to modes of settlement, they differ in the sense that
the latter contemplates the reference of a dispute to a pre-constituted organ of permanent
character, formed by virtue of a multilateral treat”. The significance of great personalities of
peace as envisaged by the international court of Justice could be adequately found in the
decision of the court that in the event of a state appearing before it without its national on the
bench of the international court, such a state (country) may appoint an adhoc judge for the
case, as in the case of Nigeria/Cameroon Boundary Dispute before the international court of
Justice. Further more, these ad hoc judges have the nature of arbitrators.

19
Regional Arrangements
In contemporary international relations, there is the trend for nation-states to form regional
groupings, which are seen as more important than independent sovereign units. According to
Akinboye, S.O. and Otto, F.O. (2005: 168),
“The term regions mean areas smaller than states. In the international relations discourse, a
region is invariably an area embracing the territories of three or more states. These states are
bound together by ties of common interest as well as geography. The states may however not
be close to each other in terms of territory or be found in the same continent as the world map
indicates. They may not be a homogeneous political entity, but at the same time, they may
share certain identification characteristics such as proximity, common interests, language,
historic, spiritual and cultural affinities. As a result, they may make themselves jointly
responsible for the peaceful settlement of disputes… and security in their respective
regions…”

Article 52 of the UN charter provides thus: Nothing in the present charter precludes the
existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the
maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action,
provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the
purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Reinforcing Article 52 is Article 55 of the charter which further provides thus: The Security
Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for
enforcement action under its authority…

Conclusion From the above submissions, all the conflict resolution techniques are predicated
on the emergence of great personalities of peace who could shun parochialism and ensure
they use their fountain of knowledge to preach, and seek ways of sustainable peace in a
troubled world.

GOLDA MEIR THE FIRST FEMALE PRIME MINISTER OF ISREAL

Meir was born Golda Mabovitch on 3rd May, 1898 in Kiev in the Russian Empire (today’s
Ukraine) to Blume Neiditch and Moshe Mabovitch, a carpenter. Meir wrote in her
autobiography that her earliest memories were of her father, boarding up the front door in
response to rumors of an imminent organized killing of large members of people especially
because of their race or religion. She had two sisters, Sheyna and Tzipke, as well as five other
siblings who died in childhood. She was especially close to Sheyna. Moshe Mabovitch left to

20
find work in New York City in 1903. In his absence, the rest of the family moved to Pinsk to
join her mother’s family. In 1905, Moshe moved to Milwaukee in search of higher-paying
work and found employment in the workshops of the local railroad yard.

The following year, he had saved up enough money to bring his family to the United States.
Blume, Meir’s mother, ran a grocery store on Milwaukee’s north side, where by age eight,
Golda had been put in charge of watching the store when her mother went to the market for
supplies. Golda attended the Fourth Street Grade School (now Golda Meir School) from 1906
to 1912. Displaying traits of a future leader from youth, she organized a fundraiser to pay for
her classmates’ textbooks. After forming the American Young Sisters Society, she rented a
hall and scheduled a public meeting for the event. She went on to graduate valedictorian of
her class despite not knowing English at the beginning of her schooling. At 14, she went to
North Division High School and worked on part time. Her mother wanted her to leave school
and marry, but she rebelled. She bought a train ticket to Denver, Colorado, and went to live
with her married sister, Sheyna Korngold. The Korngolds held intellectual evenings at their
home where Meir was exposed to debates on Zionism, literature, women’s suffrage, trade
unionism and more. In her autobiography, she wrote: “To the extent that my own future
convictions were shaped and given form… those talk-filled nights in Denver played a
considerable role.” “In Denver, she also met Morris Meyerson, a sign painter, whom she later
married at the age of 19.

She attended the Milwaukee Normal School (now University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee) in

1916, and probably part of 1917. The same year, she took a position at a Yiddish Folks
Schule. While at the Folks Schule, she came more closely into contact with the ideals of
Labour Zionism. In 1913, she began dating Morris Meryerson and they were married on 24th
December 1917. She was a committed Labour Zionist and he was a dedicated socialist.
Together, they left their jobs to join a kibbutz in Palestine in 1921. She gradually became
more involved with the Zionist movement. At the end of World War II, she took part in the
negotiations with the British that resulted in the creation of the state of Israel. In 1948, she
became Israel’s first ambassador to the Soviet Union. That position lasted seven months, and
she returned to Israel in 1949 to become Minister of Labour. In 1956, she became Foreign
Minister, and she remained in this capacity until her retirement in 1965. She changed her
name from “Meyerson” to “Meir” in 1956. On 26 February 1969, Prime Minister Levi Eshko
died of heart attack, at which time many members of the Knesset asked Meir to return to

21
politics. She became Prime Minister of Israel with the Labour Party’s support. Meir’s greatest
crisis came during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. While as Prime Minister, she spent much of
her time developing support for Israel by meeting with Western leaders. In 1974, the labour
coalition broke up and Meir left office. She died four years later, in 1978.
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF GOLDA MEIR

The political philosophy of Golda Meir stemmed from her early life experience contained in
her autobiography when her father was boarding a vehicle in response to rumours of Russia’s
organized killing of members of Jewish Community because of their race and faith. The bitter
experience of a persecuted people on account of their race, and the magnitude it took made
her adopt a political philosophy of Zionism. It was a philosophy for the total liberation of
Jews all over the world and the fulfillment of the Balffour declaration of 1917, promising the
oppressed and persecuted Jews a homeland. She pursued that philosophy by getting more
involved and entrenched in Zionist movement and was always in the forefront championing
the course of Zionism until the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Golda Meir was one of
the twenty-four signatories to the Israeli declaration of independence on 14th May, 1948: and
elated about the fruit of her political philosophy, she reportedly wept shedding tears of joy. It
was further added that the emotional outburst was because when she studied American
history as a school girl and read about those who signed America’s declaration of
independence in 1776, Golda Meir never thought the situation was real. Founding herself in
that same situation, which history will recall, she felt elated and became emotional.
IDEAL OF PEACE FACILITATION BY GOLDA MEIR
Mrs. Golda Meir had demonstrated a strong commitment to the overall well-being of the
Jews in their pursuit of a homeland, conducive to making life worthwhile while equally
seeking for the understanding and love of the global community for her race. In July, 1938,
Gold Meir was the Jewish observer from Palestine at the Evian Conference called by the
United State’s President, Franklin D. Roosevelt for discussing ways of facilitating conducive
atmosphere for the beleaguered Jews refugees fleeing from Nazi persecution. The conference
witnessed the attendance of delegates from thirty-two countries that, though expressed their
sorrow at the fate of the European Jews, but ironically gave excuses for the inability of their
countries to admit those persecuted refugees. Meir was delighted that only the Dominican
pledged to accept one hundred thousand refugees on compassionate terms. After a lengthy
cogitation about the entire plight of her Jewish race, and the scenario witnessed at the
conference, Gold Meir, visibly shaken, but resolute, philosophically remarked:

22
There is only one thing I hope to see before I die and that is that my people should not need
expression of sympathy any more.

Similarly in June 1946 when the British cracked down on the Zionist movement in Palestine
due to Militant Zionist activities, Golda Meir was put in charge of the Political Department of
the Jewish Agency in the absence of Moshe Sharett. By her position, she gallantly lived up to
expectation as the principal negotiator between the Jews in Palestine and the British
Mandatory authorities. When Moshe Sharett returned from the incarceration of the British, he
chose to go to attend the talks on the United Nation’s Partition Plan and thought it better to
leave the headship of the political department in the hands of Golda Meir who was
considered a great expert in peace facilitation. Golda Meir was in that saddle, seeking and
facilitating the acceptance of the Jewish community until the establishment of the state of
Israel in 1948.

Dear student, as unsettled as the Jewish people, scattered all over Europe were, Golda Meir
was conscious of the need for raising fund to meet their immediate exigencies and despite
being a woman, she went all out to raise enough fund for the immediate take-off of the state
of Israel. Her predecessor, and the first Israeli Premier, Ben-Gurion was so elated that he
wrote that Meir’s role as the Jewish woman who got the money which made the state of
Israel possible would go down one day in the history books. A very sympathetic and humane
personality, whose role as a pacifist knew no barrier; she was noted for fighting any cause
that dehumanized any people or race, anywhere in the globe. For seeing the Arabs in mass
exodus before the Arab/Israeli War of independence in 1948, she was terribly upset,
described it as dreadful, and likened it to what had befallen the Jews in Nazi-occupied
Europe. She abhorred vengeance as a policy for Israelis. Rather, she kept seeking mutual
understanding and acceptance of the Jews as God’s Creatures in the global community. When
Golda Meir served as Foreign Minister under Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in 1956, she
promoted ties with the newly established states in Africa with a view to gaining allies in the
international community. To Meir, Life would not be fulfilled if one does not share his or her
experience with one another. Meir believed that Israel had experience in nation-building that
could be a model for the Africans. She was of the view that like most African nations, Israel
had shaken off foreign rule as much as they (Israel) have learnt how to reclaim their land,
how to increase the yields of their farm crops and how to organize irrigation. In addition, in
Golda Meir’s views, Israel had learnt through experience how to raise poultry, how to live

23
together and above all, how to defend themselves against aggressors. She then concluded
that, “Israel could be a role model because it had been forced to find solutions to the kinds of
problems that large, wealthy, powerful states had never encountered.”

In 1969, and the early 1970s, Golda Meir met with many world leaders to promote her vision
of peace in the Middle East, as a woman who believed that if there was peace in the Middle
East, the global community would have peace. Some of the world leaders she met in her drive
towards peace facilitation were Richard Nixon of the United States of America in 1969,
Nicolae Ceausesca in 1972, and Pope Paul VI in 1973. Also in 1973, she hosted Willy
Brandt, the Chancellor of West Germany in Israel. In August, 1970, Godla Meir accepted a
U.S. peace initiative that called for an end to the war of attrition and an Israeli pledge to
withdraw to “secure and recognized boundaries” in the framework of a comprehensive peace
settlement. These were the ideals inherent in peace-facilitation synonymous with Golda Meir.
It is necessary to mention that Nigerian post Independence Government made use of that
ideal move by Israel while the Western Region Government under the Premiership of Chief
Obafemi Awolowo actually embraced the gesture through an active collaboration with Israel
in areas of Agriculture. The farm settlements in vogue till now are legacies of that ideal of
peace facilitator by Golda Meir.
THE ENDURING LEGACIES OF GOLDA MEIR
Golda Meir left legacies of absolute commitment to service and untainted principle to the
course she espoused. To her, principle is indivisible for it has to be either wholly kept or
wholly divided. She believed what was good for the goose should be equally be good for the
gander. On 10th May 1948, just four days before the official establishment of the state of
Israel, Meir, a woman with an uncommon courage, put fears behind her and disguised as an
Arab woman for a secret meeting with King Abdullah of Transjodan at which she urged him
not to join other Arab countries in attacking the Jews. Responding, King Abdullah asked her
not to hurry to proclaim a state.

Golda Meir, setting aside any looming danger that could accompany any uncomplimentary
response was quick to respond in an acerbic tone thus: “We have been waiting for two
thousand (2000) years. Is that hurrying? Further, she believed that human beings deserve
equal treatment and liberty to pursue their course of life as best as nature endows them with.
It was her very strong belief that propelled her to be championing the course of the
persecuted Jews, her race who were being treated as persona-non-grate all over European

24
countries. When she was the head of the Jewish Agency Political Department, Meir
witnessed the mass exodus of Arab before the outbreak of the 1948 War of Independence and
her heart bled. She could not fathom how human beings, through injustice could throw
themselves into such plight. She likened the Arab plight to what have befallen the Jews in
Germany as well as other European Countries.

Within her, an end to the horror must be found. Meir left a legacy of uprightness, coupled
with knowing when to accept responsibility and when to quit. Following the Yom Kippur
War 1973, Meir’s government was plagued by in-fighting and question over Israel’s lack of
preparedness for the war. A commission was appointed to investigate the war. In the
commission’s report, Golda Meir was cleared of direct responsibility for the lapses and was
said to have decided wisely, with common sense and speedily, in favour of the full
mobilization of the reserves, as recommended by the chief-of-staff, despite weighty political
considerations, thereby performing a most important service for the defence of the state. The
general election that followed the Yom Kippur War in December 1973 was won by her party
but being a woman of conscience and principle, she resigned on 11th April 1974 due to what
she felt was the will of the people. Besides, she felt she had had enough of the stint of
political leadership to give room to others. In her words’, Five years as a premier are
sufficient… It is beyond my strength to continue carrying this burden’,
She was succeeded by Yitzhak Rabin on 3rd June 1974. That remained a worthy lesson,
especially for the sit tight leaders of the third world countries who have aggregated
governance to that of their personal property. Unlike many Africa countries which have
programmed political post for their family members through manipulation of their countries
constitution, Golda Meir set a worthy lesson as she left the stage while the ovation was
loudest.
THE CHALLENGES FACED BY GOLDA MEIR
Golda Meir, having adopted Zionism as her philosophy was not unaware of the
accompanying challenges she would be facing globally due to the persecution her race faced
in Europe. She prepared adequately, for those challenges which stemmed from the search for
a home land for the Jews and for the global community to accord them the recognition her
race deserved. In her high school, Meir joined the Zionist group called Poalei Zion or
Workers of Zion. In 1921, Meir immigrated to the British Mandated Palestine with her
husband, Morris Myerson and settled in Kibbatz Merhavga. A woman of Spartan courage,
she was preparing herself for the impending challenges of nation hood and moved to Tel

25
Aviv in 1924 where she became an official of the Histadrut Trade Union. While there, she
served in a managerial post with Solel Boneh and between 1932 and 1934, having proved
herself worthy of facing her self-wished mission of salvaging her race from the claws of the
oppressors, she served as an emissary in the United States, serving as secretary of the
Hecalutz women’s organization.

After realising her ability to stand up to the cause of Zionism, she became the secretary of the
Histadrut’s Action Committee as well as of its policy section. The challenges of leadership
became apparent in 1946 when the pre-state British Mandatory. Authorities clamped down
and imprisoned most of the Jewish community leadership. There appeared a vacuum which
only someone with the wherewithal to face the challenges of the era could occupy, and the
immediate choice was Golda Meir who replaced Moshe Sharett as head of the Jewish
Agency’s Political Department and the Chief Jewish liaison with the British. Since then,
having been elected into the Executive of the Jewish Agency, she became the most active in
fund-raising activities in support of the cause of Zionism at a very critical stage of pre-state of
Israel. Because of her courage to tread where others feared to go, David Ben-Gurion, the first
Israeli Prime Minister appointed Golda Meir a member of the first Provisional Government
of Israel. It would be recalled that as a further testimony to her courage to take challenges,
Ben Gurion considered her the right choice to go to the lion’s den, and indeed, to be sent on a
harzardous trip to an Arab monarch, King Abdullah of Jordan. She disguised as an Arab
without minding what could happen to her if detected. Nevertheless, she met the king and
persuaded him not to attack Israel but despite the King’s refusal that had made up his mind to
attack Israel following the departure of the British, she demonstrated an uncommon
preparedness to face a life-threatening challenge.

Dear students, the Jews were unsympathetically treated in Eastern Europe and the treatment
was sufficient to dissuade any vocal Jew to wish to represent the Jewish state anywhere on
the soil of Eastern Europe. The Jewish authority were convinced that Gold Meir possessed
the courage to face the challenges which the posting of a Jewish envoy to Eastern Europe
could entail and in June, 1984, got posted to Soviet Union where she worked assiduously to
mend fences for the acceptability of the Jews as nature’s creatures in a civilized global
community. In January 1966, after having held several top political appointments, Meir
retired on account of ill-health. However, finding her very useful in being capable of facing
challenges, she was dragged out of retirement on 17th March, 1969 to take over as Prime

26
Minister following the death of Prime Minister Levi Eshkol. The appointment at that crucial
period of the State of Israel made her the World’s third female Prime Minister after Mrs.
Sirimayo Bandaranaike of Ceylon and India Gandhi of India. The deceased prime minister
had got entangled in governance trouble before his demise which Golda Meir inherited and
the problem was not abated until the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War on 6th October 1973.
Golda Meir could have launched a full-scale pre-emptive strike on Syrian forces but
weighing the advices of her defence Minister, Moshe Dayan, and the challenges facing Israel
in attracting foreign aids for her stability and development which could elude her if she was
the aggressor, she tarried and opted for a counter-attack instead.

However, it turned out be a costly mistake as while considering briefing the United States of
the situation, war broke out with the massively coordinated Egyptian and Syrian assaults
against Israel on October 6, 1973. It caught Israel unprepared and the only option was to
surrender. Between 1973 and 1974, disputes over the blame for Israel’s unpreparedness for
the Yom Kippur War led to demands for new leadership and increased the divisions in the
labour party. Sensing that she could not get her cabinet to easily agree on policies, she
resigned in 1974 as Prime Minister. The global community eulogized her as a woman who
met challenges, faced them with all emphasis at her command, and excelled.
John F. Kennedy the 35th America President
The height that great men reached were not acquired by a sudden flight, but by courage and
absolute endurance. Kennedy was born on May 29, 1917, at Brooklyne, Massachussets. He
was the second son of Joseph P. Kennedy and Rose Fitzgeralds. His mother, Rose, was the
eldest child of her father, John “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald who was a very prominent Boston
political figure. Kennedy lived in Boston for the first ten years of his life. He attended various
schools both in Boston and several institutions in the United States (U.S.) In 1931, Kennedy
was sent to a private university, preparatory for boys in Wallingford, Connecticut, where his
senior brother had previously attended. At a period, he was ill and after recovering, moved to
Chaot where he graduated in 1935 and that year, Kennedy’s superlative in his year book was:
“Most likely to become President”.

He thereafter followed his parents to London, hoping to study at the London School of
Economics but though registered, circumstances of ill-health forced him out. In 1936, he
moved to Harvard College. In July 1937, after taking his convertible, sailed on the SS
Washington to France and spent ten weeks driving with a friend through France, Italy,

27
Germany, Holland and England. In June 1938, Kennedy sailed with his father and brother,
Joe to spend July working with his father who was recently appointed U.S. Ambassador to
the Court of St. Jame’s by President Roosevelt, at the American embassy in London. He also
visited Czechoslovakia and Germany and later rejoined his father on 1st September 1939,
which was the day Germany invaded Poland. Kennedy also toured extensively to Europe, the
Soviet Union, the Balkans and the Middle East to gather background information for his
thesis at Havard. Back in England, he still kept struggling, despite being born with silver
spoon in his mouth.

He never rested on the affluence of his parents but kept nurturing hope. John F. Kennedy and
his family were at the Strangers’ Gallery of the House of Commons to hear speeches either in
support or against the United Kingdom’s declaration of war on Germany. Kennedy was in the
commons as his father’s representative to help with arrangements for American survivors of
the SS Athenia, before flying back to the U.S. His effort at searching for information for his
thesis yielded result and in 1940, completed the thesis, titled “Appeasement in Munich” about
British participation in the Munich Agreement. Accepting his father’s advice, the thesis was
published into a book under another title, “Why England Slept” (a strong philosophy of who
fights and runs aways lives to fight another day) and became a best seller. In 1941, Kennedy
volunteered for the U.S. Army but was rejected because of his back problem. However, he
was accepted in September of that year following the intervention of the Director of the
Office of Naval Intelligence who was a former naval attaché to Kennedy’s father.

He was attached to the Naval Reserve Office Training Corps and Motor Torpedo Boat
Squadron Training Centre before his deployment to Panama and the Pacific thereafter. He
served meritoriously which eventually earned him the rank of lieutenant, commanding a
Patrol Torpedo (PT) boat. In 1943, precisely on August 2nd, Kennedy’s boat, the PT-109 was
rammed into by the Japanese destroyer, Amagiri while Kennedy was taking part in a
nighttime patrol near New Georgia in the Solomon Islands. Kennedy was thrown across the
deck and the accident added to his unhealed backache. The accident was enough to drive life
out of any ordinary person, but Kennedy, sensing that capitulation would destroy him and his
crew members, summed up courage. He swam, towing a badly burnt man by using a life
jacket strap he clenched in his mouth, and towed the wounded man to an island, and later to
another island from where his crew were subsequently rescued. For that heroic exploit,
Kennedy received the Navy and Marine Corps Medal with the following citations.

28
 For an extremely heroic conduct as commanding officer of Motor Torpedo Boat 109
following the collision and sinking of that vessel in the Pacific War. Thereafter, on August 1-
2, 1943, unmindful of personal danger, lieutenant… Kennedy unhesitatingly braved the
difficulties and hazards of darkness to direct rescue operations, swimming many hours to
secure aid and food after he had succeeded in getting his crew ashore. His outstanding
courage, endurance and leadership contributed to the saving of several lives and were in
keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

Kennedy also bagged other decorations in World War II such as the Purple Heart, Asiatic-
Pacific Campaign Medal, and World War II Victory Medal. He was discharged honourably
from the U.S. Naval service in early 1945. Then, Kennedy settled down as an author and
newspaper correspondent. On January 3, 1947, he was elected a member of the Congress
representing the Democratic Party. His political profile soared until he won the American
Presidential election of November 8, 1960 by defeating his Republican opponent, Richard
Nixon in a closely fought electoral battle. On January 20, 1961, in an internationally televised
programme, watched in Nigeria, courtesy of the Awolowo Administration of 1954-1959 era,
John Fitzgerald Kennedy was sworn in as the 35 President of the United States of America.
He died on November 22, 1963 from the effects of an assassin’s bullet in Dallas and buried in
the Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington. He was posthumously awarded the Presidential
Medal of Freedom on December 6, 1993.
Political Philosophy of John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States of
America.
As contained in the introduction to this unit, John F. Kennedy’s political philosophy was
based on liberalism. He was of the view that all men and women are born equal and that no
hindrance must be erected to prevent any human being’s drive from his or her legitimate
pursuit. The most pressing domestic issues of Kennedy’s era were the turbulent and state-
sanctioned racial discrimination. The United State Supreme Court had ruled in 1954 in
Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional.
However, many schools especially in Southern States did not obey the Supreme Court’s
judgement. Segregation on buses, in restaurants, movie theatres, bathrooms, and other public
places remained. Kennedy was strongly of the view that there should be a strict adherence to
the rule of law as opposed to the rule of the jungle. Kennedy therefore supported racial
integrating and civil rights. As a demonstration of his philosophy, Kennedy, during the 1960

29
Presidential campaign telephoned Coretta Scott King, wife of the jailed Reverend Martin
Luther King Jr. which perhaps, drew some additional black support to his candidacy.

John and Robert Kennedy’s intervention secured the early release of Marthin Luther King
from jail. As President, Kennedy initially believed the grassroots movement for civil rights
would only anger many southern whites who propagated racial discrimination and made it
even more difficult to pass civil rights laws through congress, which was dominated by
conservative southern democrats, and he distanced himself from it. As a result, many civil
rights leaders viewed Kennedy as unsupportive. On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy
intervened when Alabama Governor, George Wallance blocked the doorway to the
University of Alabama to stop two African American students, Vivian Malone of James
Hood, from enrolling. George Wallace moved aside after being confronted by Federal
Marshals Deputy General Nicholas Katzenbach, and the National Guard. It was that evening
that Kennedy gave his famous Civil Rights address on national Television and radio. His love
for the plight of the black race was limitless and Dianam Dakolo, in his treatice on Kennedy
dynasty and back American indicated that Kennedy exhorted the American people.

“We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth
from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new
generation of Americans – born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and
bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage – and unwilling to witness or permit the slow
undoing or those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which
we are committed today at home and around the world”.

In a clear break with the tokenism of antebellum American (from the era of John Adams and
Jefferson to the outbreak of the American Civil War (1861-5) and post-Lincoln
Reconstruction, President Kennedy moved to give full effect to the letter and spirit of the
Declaration of Independence. To affirm that “all men and women are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain. Inalienable Rights,” he promptly established the
Committee on Equal Employment Opportunities, with a mandate much broader than similar
initiatives by previous administrations. President Kennedy appointed Robert Weaver an Afro-
American to the United States cabinet as Head, Federal Housing and Home Finance Agency,
a most strategic department. The mobility ladders erected by Kennedy also saw a
distinguished black jurist, Thurgood Marshall, climb to the U.S. Circuit Court of appeals in
1961. By sundry policies and acts, Kennedy expanded a frontier opened for blacks and other

30
coloured citizens through Executives Orders by President Frankin D. Roosevelt in 1941
(banning discrimination in employment) and in 1948 by President Harry Truman (integrating
all units of America’s Armed Forces).

Also, like President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who deployed federal troops to Central High
School, Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957, to enforce the rights of nine black students to study
there, having fulfilled admission requirements, Kenedy sent federal troops to the all-white
University of Mississippi in 1962 to provide security for a black student, James Meredith,
whose enrolment had been fiercely resisted by supremacists within the institution. Other
black students admitted to the University of Alabama were similarly protected by federal
troops in 1963. To secure the political rights of blacks and have them fully integrated into
America’s mainstream, the President had an ally in his younger brother, Robert Kennedy,
whom he had appointed U.S Attorney General. The latter provided logistic support and legal
backing for Freedom Riders, an interracial group constituted by the Congress of Racial
Equality to defy segregationist in all their preserves-drinking fountains, pleasure haunts,
lunch counters, bus and train stations – while the President was engrossed in the formulation
of a Civil Rights Bill and related initiatives for black empowerment.

The American nation under the administration of John F. Kennedy was radically different
from that conceived of by Thomas Jefferson, who had over 200 black slaves labouring under
inhumane conditions on his Monticello (Hermitage) Plantation. American’s foremost
historian, Samuel Eliot Morison, highlighted Jefferson’s deviance in his work, the oxford
History of the American People, Prehistory to 1789. His words: “Did Jefferson think of
blacks when he wrote, “All men and woman are created equal?” His subsequent career
indicates that he did not; that in his view, blacks were not men and women. Kennedy signed
the executive order creating Presidential Commission on the status of Women in 1961. He
was quite gender sensitive.

In his desire to give equal room for the blacks and whites to co-exits, Kennedy became an
advocate for the poor. Responding to allegations that Martin Luther King Jr. was a
communist, the Kennedy’s administration agreed to let Federal Bureau of investigation
wiretape private individuals, including Martin Luther King Jr. The source of the original
allegations was someone discovered to be a burning hatred for King, whom he viewed as an
upstart and a troublemaker. On issues concerning immigration, John F. Kennedy proposed an
overhaul of American immigration policy that later was to become the immigration Act of

31
1965, sponsored by Kennedy’s brother, Senator Edward Kennedy. It dramatically shifted the
source of immigration from Northern and Western European countries towards immigration
from Latin American and Asia and shifted the emphasis of selection of immigrants towards
facilitating family reunification. Kennedy wanted to dismantle the selection of immigrants
based on country of origin and saw this, as an extension of his civil rights policies. A
visionary leader, Kennedy was eager for the United States to lead the way in the space race.
Sergei Khrushchev explained that Kennedy approached his father, Nikita, twice about a “joint
venture” in space exploration in June 1961 and autumn 1963. On the first occasion, the
Soviet Union was far ahead of America in terms of space technology. Kennedy first
announced the goal for landing a man on the Moon in speaking to a joint session of Congress
on May 25, 1961 saying:

First I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieveing the goal, before this decade
is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him back to the earth. No single space
project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long-
range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult to accomplish.

Kennedy later made a speech at Rich Univeristy on September 12, 1962 in which he said:
“No nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the
race for space” What a philosophy for third world leaders! It is not enough to be on top of a
system but in staying there through concrete planning and good governance. A good number
of developing countries are adopting ambivalent policies, leading to retrogression. On the
second approach to Khrushchev, the Ukrainian was persuaded that cost sharing was
beneficial and American space Technology was forging ahead. The U.S. had launched a
geostationally satellite and Kennedy had asked congress to approve more than $25 billion for
the Apollo Project. Khrushchev agreed to a joint venture in late 1963 but Kennedy was
assassinated before the agreement could be formalized. On July 20, 1969 almost six years
after Kennedy’s death, Project Apollo’s goal was finally realized when men landed on the
Moon. The bottom line of John F. Kennedy’s philosophy is that he concluded it on the basis
of absolute truth and justice. Hence, after his demise, the shouldering continues.
On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated while on a political trip to
Texas. He was reportedly shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, an employee of the schoolbook
depository from which the shots were suspected to have been fired. The issue became
controversial as the alleged assassin was also shot and killed by one Ruby before facing trial.

32
President Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, set up the Warren Commission to investigate
the assassination, which concluded that Oswald was the lone assassin. On November 25,
1963, Kennedy’s body was buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Over a period of 3 years
(1964-1966), an estimated 16 million people had visited his grave. To crown it all, J.F.K’s
grave is lit with an “Eternal flame”. What a memoriam and a way to honour an everlasting
legend!. At age 46, an only 3 years as President of the most powerful state in the world, the
memory of his service endures! Leaders of the third world have a lot to learn, from the
philosophy of that global great personality of peace.
Ideal of Peace Facilitation by John F. Kennedy
President Kennedy’s foreign policy was dominated by American-Soviet relations. In fact,
much of his foreign policy trust revolved around proxy interventions in the context of the
early stage of the cold war. The well grounded policy of mutual distrust between the East and
the West, which was aggravated due to the manner the U.S., silenced Japan’s intransigence to
end the Second World War, created a no-love-lost syndrome between both. The cold war was
an underground, but pungent war that ravaged the globe and any American policy on issues
considered to be of mutual effect, are usually espoused by succeeding administrations. The
Eisenhower Administration had hatched a plan to overthrow the Fidel Castro regime in Cuba
before Kennedy’s election to the presidency. The nerve centre of the plan structured and
detailed by the crack Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A) and with the tacit approval of the
U.S. Military but with minimal input from the United States Department of State, was the
arming of a counter revolutionary insurgency composed of anti-Castro Cubans. Those U.S.
trained Cuban insurgents, led by CIA paramilitary officers from the special activities division
were to invade Cuba and instigate an uprising among the Cuban people with a view to
removing Fidel Castro from power.

Consequently, on 17th April 1961, Kennedy ordered the previously planned invasion of Cuba
to jump into action. With the active collaboration of the C.I.A., in an operation code named
“Bay of Pigs Invasion, two thousand, five hundred and six (2,506) U.S. trained Cuban exiles,
called “Brigade 2506” returned to the bay of Pigs Island with a view to deposing Castro. The
invasion was not properly co-ordinated before it swung into action. There was no co-
ordination of the necessary defence agencies of the U.S. which made the invaders suffer a
huge humiliation. By 19th April, 1961, The Cuba government had captured or killed the
invading exiles, and Kennedy, out of frustration, was forced to negotiate for the release of the
One Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Nine (1,189) survivors. It was a great challenge to

33
the U.S. tactic in their face-off with agents of communism. It was not until after twenty
months that Cuba released the captured exiles in an exchange for $53 million worth of food
and medicine. That particular incident reinforced Fidel Castro’s wariness of the U.S. and kept
assuming that Cuba could be invaded again.

As a follow up to the above, Cuba, in an effort to safeguard her sovereignty sought the
physical presence of the Soviet Union in her territory to serve as a deterrent to the U.S.
aggression. In pursuance of that objective, the U.S.S.R. started constructing soviet
intermediate-range ballistic missile site in Cuba, unknown to the U.S. What eventually led to
the famous Cuban Missile crisis began on October 14, 1962 when American U-2 CIA spy
planes took photographs of the site and the photographs shown to Kennedy on October 16,
1962. It was a glaring serious nuclear threat to the United States which demanded an
immediate response. Many options were open to the U.S. but out of them, two were debated.
The first was to attack the sites and precipitate a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. But if the
U.S. kept mute, it would endure the threat of nuclear weapons being launched from close
range as they were in such proximity the U.S. might have been unable to retaliate if they were
launched pre-emotively.

Another consideration was that the United States (U.S.) would appear to the world as weak in
its own hemisphere. Despite pressure from many military officers and cabinet members who
pressed for an air assault on the missile sites, Kennedy, the most powerful leader in the
world, with sufficient arsenal at his disposal to launch an attack at any prompting, resolved to
use diplomacy to resolve the conflict in order to save mankind from nuclear self –destruction
which a direct confrontation between both the U.S. and USSR would engender. What a
maturity! The effect of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki on August 6, and
August 9, 1945 respectably to put paid to Japan’s intransigence and its effect, not only on
those communities but far beyond, was not lost on him. He allowed the rule of law to prevail
as the disregard of it collapsed the League of Nations, prompting the Second World War. One
of the League’s provisions in 1919 was that the independence granted to small nations shall
be guaranteed and respected and that any nation found to be the aggressor shall be
sanctioned. That was not to be, and the League collapsed. The follow up after the 2nd World
War was the formation of the United Nations Organisation (U.N.O.) and one of its main aims
is the resolution to prevent any further wars.

34
With the World in a bi-polarity by 1962, the action of any of the bi-polar powers in an
adversarial mode could precipate World War. With the above at the mind of J.F. Kennedy,
Kennedy set aside those advices from his military and cabinet members and ordered a naval
quarantine in which the U.S. navy inspected all ships arriving in Cuba. He began negotiations
with the Soviets and ordered the Soviets to remove all defensive materials that were being
built in Cuba and threatened that without doing so, the Soviet and Cuban peoples would face
naval quarantine. The Soviet Premier, Nikita Khrushchev, initially denied the existence of
such site, and when shown the photographs in a tete-a-tete with Kennedy, which historians
call the K. vs K. meeting, he owned up. Soviets reaction was that if the U.S. could be
provoking conflict by building missile sites in Turkey, Soviet Union’s next door neighbour,
the U.S.S.R. too is justified to do the same in Cuba. Khrushchev went further that the US
must also dismantle the pile-up in Turkey if her’s in Cuba must go. The world was waiting on
a keg of gunpower throughout the period of altercations.

The United Nations, sensing an acute danger to world peace, the closest since 1945 when the
Second World War ended, intervened and finally brokered peace. Through the good offices
of the U.N. Secretary General, Kennedy and Khrushchev met face to face and reached a
basically cordial and lasting agreement. Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles subject to
U.N. inspections, if the U.S. publicly promised never to invade Cuba and also remove her
missiles in Turkey. The entire global community, restive because of uncertainty, heaved a
sigh of relief when both combatants embraced World peace as non-negotiable by removing
their arsenals in each other’s territory. They were contious of the enormous power at their
disposal to re-act to any provocation but as advocates of peace, knowingfully well any
reaction that could escalate conflict might result in annihilation of human race, they
succumbed to peaceful settlement. By that single act, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy kept
pursuing causes consistent with promoting world peace. This is a lesson for the third World
leaders, who have adopted violence as a way and pattern of their modus operandi. If you want
peace, prepare for peace.

The acid test Kenedy faced on the U.S. – Cuban Missile Crisis enabled him to learn that
however great the power of the American Presidency and of the American nation could be,
their ability to shape the course of events was not unlimited. Kennedy inherited a lot of
bankrupt policies and dead-end situations which were not of his making, yet he could not
easily riggle out himself from the mesh of those accumulated errors and miscalculations.

35
However, he invoked great tact as an international personality of peace to map out
determined courses of action and commitments in his spirited efforts to change and modify
them. As President Kennedy came to understand the limitations of power as well as its uses,
he charted new directions and also redirected the nation’s thinking towards them. The test-
ban treaty was the turning point because he knew if efforts were not intensified towards it; the
global community would be quite unsafe. Although, he was not privileged to carry the policy
very far but he lived long enough to set them in motion. Today, dear student, American
nation, and the global community have embraced the mature leadership of John F. Kennedy
to cut back arms spending and reduction in military commitments in order to explore the
possibilities for a gradual reduction of tensions. The bottom line is that the global community
is making a great turn towards peace. President John F. Kennedy, exhibiting his ideal of
peace facilitation, again directed American power towards broader objectives than deterrence
and containment. That new course he had charted was captured in his address at the
University of Main, United States on 19th October, 1963 thus:
While the road to… peace is long and hard, and full of traps and pitfalls, there is no reason
not to take each step that we can safely take. It is in our national self-interest to ban nuclear
testing in the atmosphere so that all our citizens can breath more easily. It is in our national
self-interest to sell surplus wheat and storage to feed Russians and Easter Europeans who
are willing to divert large portions of their limited foreign exchange reserves away from the
implements of war. It is in our national self interest to keep weapons of mass destruction out
of outer space, to maintain an emergency link with Moscow, and to substitute joint and
peaceful exploration in the Antactic and outer space for cold war exploitation. ---for without
our making such an effort, we could not maintain the leadership and respect of the freeworld.
Without our making such an effort, we could not convince our adversaries that war was not
in their interest. And without our making such an effort, we could never, in case of war,
satisfy our hearts and minds that we had done all that could be done to avoid the holocaust of
endless death and destruction…
It is instructive that John Fitzgerald Kennedy actually put forward strong ideals of peace-
facilitation that the American and the global community would be eternally grateful for.
The Enduring Lessons of John F Kennedy
In line with Kennedy’s foreign policy thrust to woo allies, it was felt that a number of steps
that would project the image of the U.S in good light were desirable. Kennedy was
determined to contain communism which could be better done through promoting the welfare

36
of a beleaguered people. The hopeless should be given hope, through various methods to
enable them become friendly towards the United States by embracing their policies.

Kennedy sought to contain communism in Latin America by establishing the Alliance for
progress, which sent foreign aid to troubled countries in Latin America and sought greater
human rights stands in the region. Kennedy worked closely with Puerto Rican Governor,
Lious Munoz Marin, for the development of the Alliance of Progress, as well as
developments in the autonomy of the commonwealth of Puerto Rico. As one of his
presidential acts, Kennedy asked Congress to create the Peace Corps Scheme. Through that
programme, American volunteers were sent to help under-developed nations in areas such as
education, farming, health,care, and construction. Many African countries, including Nigeria,
were beneficiaries. It recorded a huge acceptance in Nigeria and many of them were posted to
rural communities. The Peace Corps, founded in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy,
currently supports almost eight thousand (8000) American volunteers who live with local
communities in 74 emerging countries globally where they promote community development
and international friendship. In the current issue of World view magazine, a publication of the
National Peace Corps Association (NPCA). President Barack Obama, who is only a year in
office, stated his support for doubling the number of volunteers to 16,000 by 2011. He also
recognised the great opportunities that might have been realized for the United States and
other countries globally had President Kennedy’s vision of a corps of a hundred thousand
(100,000) volunteers been fulfilled. As a very worthy enduring legacy, the National Peace
Corps Association (NPCA) is spearheading a campaign to double the Peace Corps size and
move closer to Kennedy’s expansion goal.

Kennedy’s era strongly believed in alleviating poverty through a system that teaches you how
to fish and to equip you with the wherewithal to catch vessels load of fishes on your own
expertise. It was an improvement on the Marshall Economic Plan of 1947 during the
depression that ravaged the global community after the Second World War Aids, more, in
form of cash flowed to the treasuries of allies but Kennedy’s era knew that teaching a man or
a woman how to grow economically is like empowering an entire community or a town to
live a happy life. Nigeria, shortly after independence, benefited from Kennedy’s gesture.
Foreign scholarships were awarded while personnel for factories, institution of higher
learning and agriculture were provided for. The developing countries must borrow a leaf from
that system as giving out monetary incentive, or perishable article to any person will not

37
guarantee an enduring retreat from poverty. Rather, it would appear a fleeting meteor back
into poverty. In his pursuance of peace, Kennedy, on June 26, 1963, visited West Berlin and
gave a public speech criticizing communism, citing the construction of the Berlin Wall as an
example of the failures of communism. “Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not
perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in”. The speech is known
for its famous phrase: “Ich bin ein Berliner” and concluded. “We’ll never have a day like this
one”. On Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Kennedy actively participated in it because he was
convinced that with Nuclear Tests all over the place, secondary health care will not be able to
cope. Troubled by the long-term dangers of radioactive contamination and nuclear weapons
proliferation, Kennedy pushed for the adoption of a limited or partial Test Ban Treaty which
prohibited atomic testing on the ground, in the atmosphere, or under water, but did not
prohibit testing underground. The United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union
were the initial signatories to the treaty. Kennedy signed the treaty into law in August, 1963.
On the occasion of his visit to the Republic of Ireland in 1963, President Kennedy, joined
with Irish President, Eamon de Valera to form “The American- Irish Foundation. The mission
of the organization was to foster connections between Americans of Irish descent and the
country of their ancestry.

Kennedy furthered these connections of cultural solidarity by accepting a grant of armorial

bearings from the Chief Herald of Ireland. Kennedy had near-legendary status in Ireland due
to his ancestral ties to the country. Irish citizens who were alive in 1963 often have very
strong memories of Kennedy’s momentous visit. John F. Kennedy believed that pursuing a
foreign policy to woo more allies for the U.S. must not be at the expense of a viral domestic
policy. This was premised on the philosophy that man grows as factory grows but one should
grow first. It is when man grows first, that he could be sufficiently equipped to aid the growth
of the factory. Towards this, Kennedy called his domestic programme the “New frontier”. It
was an ambitious programme designed to raise the living standard of American citizens,
through federal funding for education, medical care for the elderly, economic aid to rural
regions, and government intervention to halt raging economic recession. Kennedy’s domestic
policy went further. He also promised an end to racial discrimination. That was a landmark
and if the success of that policy is in doubt, a perusal of the leaders of the U.S.
Administration will confirm that not only do we have an African American as the U.S.
President, but also Americans of African descent in various hierarchies of government. In

38
1963, he proposed a tax reform which included income cuts, but that was not passed by
congress until 1964 after his death. However, the credit of it goes to him.

It was J.F. Kennedy that ended a period of tight fiscal policies, loosening monetary policy to
keep interest rates down and encouraged growth of the economy. Kennedy presided over the
first government budget to top the $100 billion mark in 1962, and his first budget in 1961 led
to the country’s first non-war, non-recession deficit. The economy, which had been through
two recessions in three years, and was in one when Kennedy took office, accelerated notably
during his presidency. Despite low inflation and interest rates, Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) had grown by an average of only 2.2% during the Eisenhower presidency (scarcely
more than population growth at the time) and had declined by 1% during Eisenhower’s last
twelve months in office. Stagnation had taken a toll on the nation’s labour market, as well.
Unemployment had risen steadily from under 3% in 1953 to 7% by early 1961. The economy
turned around and prospered during the Kennedy administration. GDP expanded by an
average of 5.5% from early 1961 to late 1963, while inflation remained steady at around 1%
and unemployment began to ease. Industrial production rose by 15% and motor vehicle sales
leapt by 40%. This rate of growth in GDP and industry continued until around 1960 and has
yet to be repeated for such a sustained period of time. That was a feat, worthy of emulation
by African governments as well as leaders of the third world nations in the world. Kennedy
never complained about the Eisenhower economic policy. He was convinced he meant well
but that he, Kennedy, could do better. African nations are fond of using the better part of their
tenure denouncing or re-branding the policies of their predecessors as if the government they
headed is the exclusive preserve of their families. This is a sad reflection of the type of
governance made popular in many African countries. America, through purposeful
leadership, is daily growing, and re-attracting many immigrants whose projenitors have
earlier returned to Africa after the abolition of slavery.

As President, Kennedy oversaw the last pre-Furman federal execution. On March 22, 1962,
Kennedy signed into law HR5143(PL87-423) abolishing the mandatory death penalty for first
degree murder in the District of Columbia, the only remaining jurisdiction in the United
States with a mandatory death sentence. Many of Kennedy’s speeches are considered iconic;
and despite his relatively short term in office and lack of major legislative changes coming to
fruition during his term, Americans regularly vote him as one of the best presidents, in the
same league as Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin D. Roosefelt. He was

39
post humously awarded the Pacem in Terris award. It was named after a 1963 encyclical
letter by Pope John XXIII that calls upon all people of goodwill to secure peace among all
nations. Pacem in Terris is Latin for “PEACE ON EARTH”. What a colossus and a Great
personality of peace!
Challenges Faced By John F. Kennedy
Challenges spring up in various forms. Some people battle with challenges posed during the
developmental stages of life to enable them concentrate on their public life while some are
destined to experience both posed by developmental stages as well as those that spring up in
their public life. John F. Kennedy, arguably, a rare prodigy of nature, was destined to face
challenges from his early life and throughout his public life. One of his early life challenges
was when he commanded the U.S U– Boat as a Naval Lieutenant and had an encounter with
the Japanese destroyer. His boat was hit, throwing his crews members into the sea. After
swimming across and discovered a crew member missing, he swarms back on a rescue
mission, seeing it as a challenge which a patriotic officer must undertake. That was in spite of
his back-ache problem and successfully met the challenge. What could have tainted his
record and for which excuses could have been reasonably averred was jettisoned because of
his absolute loyalty to the course of his country.

Further, John F. Kennedy was a year old as a Senator when he got married to Jacqueline
Bovier on September 12, 1953 amidst series of personal tragedies capable of detracting
Kennedy from representing his constituency adequately but to him, life is full of challenges
which must be faced with equanimity. Jacqueline had a miscarriage in 1955 and a still born in
1956. Their new born son, Patrice Bouvier Kennedy died in August 1963. Kennedy had two
children who survived infancy. President Kennedy’s eldest brother, Joseph P. Kennedy Junior
died in World War II at the age of 25 and it was he who was originally programmed to carry
the family’s hopes for the presidency. John F. Kennedy was not deterred by the occurrences
which he saw as part of the inevitable challenges man must battle with in one’s evolutionary
stages of life. Kennedy also saw the ideological disparity between the West, led by the United
States of America and the East, led by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a great
challenge which he faced with utmost diplomacy during his life time. The eventual collapse
of bi-polarity in 1989 and the ascendancy of mono-polarity were not unconnected with how
he faced the challenges posed by the cold war.

40
The dowsing of the tension generated by the 1962 Cuban missile crisis was what motivated
President John F. Kennedy to devote both human and material resources to face the
challenges which, he said was the greatest issue facing his administration and which he
tagged – “The Space Challenge” Dear Student, President Kennedy’s speech to the global
community at the cessation of war of words on the face-off with the Soviet premier, Nikita
Kruschev, was that the powerful nations of the world should explore the wonders of the star
instead of its terror. As a follow up to that speech, President Kennedy paid a state visit to
Texas and delivered a powerful speech on September 13, 1962 in the city of Houston. It was
there he highlighted the intention of his administration to pursue with every emphasis at their
command the exploration of challenges poised by space. He opened up by saying that he was
meeting his audience in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, and in
an age of both knowledge and ignorance. He drove it home that the exploration of space…. Is
one of the great adventures of all time and no nation which expects to be the leader of other
nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space.

Reminding his Texas audience of the gains of the past, he said that those great Americans
who came before the present generation made sure that their country rode the first waves of
the industrial revolution, the first waves of modern invention, and the first waves of nuclear
power. He reminded them that the present generation of Americans could not afford to
founder in the back wash of the coming age of space and they must all prepare not only to be
part of it but to lead it. He explained to them that the eyes of the World now look unto space
… to the moon and to the planets and that the United States of America have vowed not to
see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. Quoting
him verbatim:
“We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of destruction, but with
instruments of knowledge and understanding. Yet the vows of the Nation can only be fulfilled
if we in this Nation are first, and therefore we intend to be first.”

Basking in the aura of total commitment to meeting the space challenges, President Kennedy
did not mince words when he claimed that the United States’ leadership in science and
industry, their hopes for peace ad security, their obligation to themselves as well as others
require them to make that effort to solve those mysteries for the good of all men and women
and for the United States of American to become the World’s leading space faring nation.
Reiterating further his total resolve to lead the American Nation into solving the challenges

41
poised by space, and re-emphasizing his administrations believe in divine support for their
noble cause, he added, that. …space is there, and we are going to climb it. And the moon and
the planets are there, and new hope for knowledge and peace are there. And therefore, as we
set sail, we ask God’s blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure
on which man has ever embarked. That powerful space-faring challenge initiated by John F.
Kennedy in 1962 has been won by the United States and has contributed largely to her status
as the Worlds leading nation after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

42