ilugunboy:
Am sure the Ibos on Nairaland are shuddering at her posts...she sound too dumb as an Ibo lady.

Dayo and Desola are really having fun using her head as a toy..

Malawian: so this thread is still on? i go enter the fray full time o. make una no dull me again for here pls. @ngozievergree, why are you even trying to make sense with these guys? it seems you are new here and dont know how it works here. dayo and other e cowards, malawian is on the wings.

Katsumoto: Hello Deep Sight,

You are interpreting blockade to imply deliberate starvation. The object of any armed conflict is to defeat your enemy. Blockade or by its medieval term, siege, simply aims to cut your enemy off supply lines so as to achieve a quick victory. The war strategy for the Nigerian civil war was crafted by Army HQ and not Awolowo. That should be very clear. After having effected a blockade, Gowon allowed, for humanitarian reasons, the air shipment of aid (food, medicine, etc) by relief agencies.

As I stated earlier, Awolowo’s comments relate to the complete enforcement of that blockade i.e. no more air supplies. The total blockade was enforced in June 1969 because despite the starvation of kids, there were no starving soldiers and Biafra continued to charge fees to relief agencies so as to buy arms. Going by Awo’s comments in that interview, I suspected that was the interview you were referring to earlier, he is claiming responsibility for the decision to stop relief agencies dropping aid through air shipments. I will not disagree with that but I will not agree to Awo being responsible for the blockade or starvation for two main reasons

1. Blockade is a military tactic and was the brainchild of military strategists and had been in enforcement since September 1967, well before Awo visited Calabar, saw dying children, and advised against air shipments.

2. Responsibility for feeding Biafrans lay with Biafran High Command. If they surrendered when they ran out of food, no one would have died of starvation. A blockade should only affect imported goods. A war is over the minute you can’t grow food internally and you can’t import as well. During the American civil war, the Yankees enforced a blockade, which mainly affected arms and imported food items like bread. There were riots over bread shortages but by and large, there was no starvation. I have provided some information to support my position that the Gowon administration tried hard to prevent the suffering of civilians.

Deep Sight: Hello Katsumoto,

- STARVATION POLICY

"Then, but above all, the ending of the war itself that I’m accused of, accused of starving the Ibos, I did nothing of the sort. You know, shortly after the liberation of these places, Calabar, Enugu and Port Harcort, I decided to pay a visit. There are certain things which I knew which you don’t know, which I don’t want to say here now, when I write my reminisces in the future I will do so. Some of the soldiers were not truthful with us, they didn’t tell us correct stories and so on.

I wanted to be there and see things for myself, bear in mind that Gowon himself did not go there at that time, it was after the war was over that he dorn himself up in various military dresses- Air force dress, Army dress and so on, and went to the war torn areas. But I went and some people tried to frighten me out of my goal by saying that Adekunle was my enemy and he was going to see to it that I never return from the place, so I went.

But when I went what did I see? I saw the kwashiorkor victims. If you see a kwashiorkor victim you’ll never like war to be waged. Terrible sight, in Enugu, in Port Harcourt, not many in Calabar, but mainly in Enugu and Port Harcourt. Then I enquired what happened to the food we are sending to the civilians. We were sending food through the Red cross, and CARITAS to them, but what happen was that the vehicles carrying the food were always ambushed by the soldiers. That’s what I discovered, and the food would then be taken to the soldiers to feed them, and so they were able to continue to fight. And I said that was a very dangerous policy, we didn’t intend the food for soldiers. But who will go behind the line to stop the soldiers from ambushing the vehicles that were carrying the food? And as long as soldiers were fed, the war will continue, and who’ll continue to suffer? and those who didn’t go to the place to see things as I did, you remember that all the big guns, all the soldiers in the Biafran army looked all well fed after the war, its only the mass of the people that suffered kwashiorkor.

You wont hear of a single lawyer, a single doctor, a single architect, who suffered from kwashiorkor? None of their children either, so they waylaid the foods, they ambush the vehicles and took the foods to their friends and to their collaborators and to their children and the masses were suffering. [size=28pt]So I decided to stop sending the food there. In the process the civilians would suffer, but the soldiers will suffer most[/size]." ^{Deliberate starvation?}

The full transcript of the interview is available here -

http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/obafemi-awolowo-archives/exclusive-chief-obafemi-awolowo-on-biafra-in-his-own-words.html

It was culled from a an audio cassette tape made available to NVS by Dr. Olu Ogunremi.

Your comments then, on Question 3, and then I may revert, if need be.

[size=18pt]International armed conflicts[/size]
While in 1863 the Lieber Code still stated that “it is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy”,[1] [size=28pt]by 1919 the Report of the Commission on Responsibility set up after the First World War listed “deliberate starvation of civilians” as a violation of the laws and customs of war subject to criminal prosecution[/size].[2] The prohibition of starvation as a method of warfare is codified in Article 54(1) of Additional Protocol I.[3] This provision was generally considered new at the time of the adoption of Additional Protocol I but since then has hardened into a rule of customary international law. Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.[4]
The prohibition of starvation is set forth in numerous military manuals.[5] Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is an offence under the legislation of many States.[6] This rule is also supported by official statements and other practice.[7] This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I.[8] Contrary practice has been generally condemned or has been denied by the accused party.[9]

Katsumoto: Hello Deep Sight,

You are interpreting blockade to imply deliberate starvation. The object of any armed conflict is to defeat your enemy. Blockade or by its medieval term, siege, simply aims to cut your enemy off supply lines so as to achieve a quick victory. The war strategy for the Nigerian civil war was crafted by Army HQ and not Awolowo. That should be very clear. After having effected a blockade, Gowon allowed, for humanitarian reasons, the air shipment of aid (food, medicine, etc) by relief agencies.

As I stated earlier, Awolowo’s comments relate to the complete enforcement of that blockade i.e. no more air supplies. The total blockade was enforced in June 1969 because despite the starvation of kids, there were no starving soldiers and Biafra continued to charge fees to relief agencies so as to buy arms. Going by Awo’s comments in that interview, I suspected that was the interview you were referring to earlier, he is claiming responsibility for the decision to stop relief agencies dropping aid through air shipments. I will not disagree with that but I will not agree to Awo being responsible for the blockade or starvation for two main reasons

1. Blockade is a military tactic and was the brainchild of military strategists and had been in enforcement since September 1967, well before Awo visited Calabar, saw dying children, and advised against air shipments.

2. Responsibility for feeding Biafrans lay with Biafran High Command. If they surrendered when they ran out of food, no one would have died of starvation. A blockade should only affect imported goods. A war is over the minute you can’t grow food internally and you can’t import as well. During the American civil war, the Yankees enforced a blockade, which mainly affected arms and imported food items like bread. There were riots over bread shortages but by and large, there was no starvation. I have provided some information to support my position that the Gowon administration tried hard to prevent the suffering of civilians.

Deep Sight:
Awaiting your kind response.

Deep Sight: In addittion to the foregoing, let me just build on the post by ACM10 above. I was going to go that way eventually but he has pre-empted me. So I might as well just do so now. In addittion to confirming your "yes" to points 1 - 3 in my last post, can you address these questions.

1. Was any act of deliberate starvation of civilians a war crime as of the time of the war? I ask this because you made allussions to international protocols that came into effect after the war and suggested that such could not apply to the war. That is correct: I am a lawyer by training and I know very well that legislation is not to be applied retroactively. The question I thus put to you is Whether the existing International Laws on War at the time of the civil war, did not recognize deliberate starvation of civilian populations as a war crime?

In answering this, please avert your mind to the citation of ACM10 in his last post.

2. Did Chief Awolowo not state in his 1983 interview that he very well knew that civilians would suffer from his directive - but simply felt that the Biafran military would suffer more?

3. Does (2) above not render the action therefore within the realm of that which must be classed "deliberate"?

Many thanks.

Katsumoto:

Article 23 of the 1949 Geneva is very clear on starvation. The Gowon administration did not fall foul of that article; please read it again.

The deliberate starvation of Biafrans was/is the responsibility of Ojukwu and the Biafran High Command. They couldn't feed their citizens and should have surrendered but they didn't. That is the main point. The issue of starvation would have been a stronger one if Nigeria continued to prevent food and aids to Biafra after the war.

The death of civilians is regrettable but there is no conflict in the history of man and was that has not led to the deaths of soldiers and civilians alike.

Trying to lay the blame of starvation on one man is disingenuous at worst and naive at best.

1. Biafra went to war without securing arms and food

2. Nigeria gained a military advantage but allowed aid to be air lifted.

3. Biafra then immorally charged relief agencies fees for supplying FREE food. Biafra used this funds to buy arms

4. Nigeria then put a stop to this and the war ends six months later.

Yet you want to put the blame of deliberate starvation on one one? ? ? The Biafrans were not culpable for the starvation and deaths? ? ?

I guess we have to agree to disagree. The facts are out there; let everyone analyse the 'facts' that suit their positions.

Jus ad bellum: The set of principles that applies to why a war is fought.

Jus in bello: The set of principles that applies to how a war is fought.

Within jus ad bellum (why a war is fought), proportionality determines the lawfulness of the military and strategic goals; thus, an attacker must explore whether the overall level of a military objective is proportionate to the level of threat against which it is supposed to be a response. Within jus in bello (how a war is fought), the concept determines the lawfulness of attacks that cause civilian casualties; thus, measures have to be taken to limit the harm military actions cause civilian populations.

"Then, but above all, the ending of the war itself that I’m accused of, accused of starving the Ibos, I did nothing of the sort. You know, shortly after the liberation of these places, Calabar, Enugu and Port Harcort, I decided to pay a visit. There are certain things which I knew which you don’t know, which I don’t want to say here now, when I write my reminisces in the future I will do so. Some of the soldiers were not truthful with us, they didn’t tell us correct stories and so on.

I wanted to be there and see things for myself, bear in mind that Gowon himself did not go there at that time, it was after the war was over that he dorn himself up in various military dresses- Air force dress, Army dress and so on, and went to the war torn areas. But I went and some people tried to frighten me out of my goal by saying that Adekunle was my enemy and he was going to see to it that I never return from the place, so I went.

But when I went what did I see? I saw the kwashiorkor victims. If you see a kwashiorkor victim you’ll never like war to be waged. Terrible sight, in Enugu, in Port Harcourt, not many in Calabar, but mainly in Enugu and Port Harcourt. Then I enquired what happened to the food we are sending to the civilians. We were sending food through the Red cross, and CARITAS to them, but what happen was that the vehicles carrying the food were always ambushed by the soldiers. That’s what I discovered, and the food would then be taken to the soldiers to feed them, and so they were able to continue to fight. And I said that was a very dangerous policy, we didn’t intend the food for soldiers. But who will go behind the line to stop the soldiers from ambushing the vehicles that were carrying the food? And as long as soldiers were fed, the war will continue, and who’ll continue to suffer? and those who didn’t go to the place to see things as I did, you remember that all the big guns, all the soldiers in the Biafran army looked all well fed after the war, its only the mass of the people that suffered kwashiorkor.

You wont hear of a single lawyer, a single doctor, a single architect, who suffered from kwashiorkor? None of their children either, so they waylaid the foods, they ambush the vehicles and took the foods to their friends and to their collaborators and to their children and the masses were suffering. [size=28pt]So I decided to stop sending the food there. In the process the civilians would suffer, but the soldiers will suffer most[/size]."

Katsumoto:

Article 23 of the 1949 Geneva is very clear on starvation. The Gowon administration did not fall foul of that article; please read it again.

The deliberate starvation of Biafrans was/is the responsibility of Ojukwu and the Biafran High Command. They couldn't feed their citizens and should have surrendered but they didn't. That is the main point. The issue of starvation would have been a stronger one if Nigeria continued to prevent food and aids to Biafra after the war.

The death of civilians is regrettable but there is no conflict in the history of man and was that has not led to the deaths of soldiers and civilians alike.

Trying to lay the blame of starvation on one man is disingenuous at worst and naive at best.

1. Biafra went to war without securing arms and food

2. Nigeria gained a military advantage but allowed aid to be air lifted.

3. Biafra then immorally charged relief agencies fees for supplying FREE food. Biafra used this funds to buy arms

4. Nigeria then put a stop to this and the war ends six months later.

Yet you want to put the blame of deliberate starvation on one one? ? ? The Biafrans were not culpable for the starvation and deaths? ? ?

I guess we have to agree to disagree. The facts are out there; let everyone analyse the 'facts' that suit their positions.

Art. 23. Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases.

The obligation of a High Contracting Party to allow the free passage of the consignments indicated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the condition that this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons
for fearing:

(a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination,
(b) that the control may not be effective, or
(c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods.

The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may make such permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers.

Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed.

After entering the country, the volunteers, in addition to Biafran health workers and hospitals, were subjected to attacks by the Nigerian army, and witnessed civilians being murdered and starved by the blockading forces. Kouchner also witnessed these events, particularly the huge number of starving children, and when he returned to France, he publicly criticised the Nigerian government and the Red Cross for their seemingly complicit behaviour. With the help of other French doctors, Kouchner put Biafra in the media spotlight and called for an international response to the situation. These doctors, led by Kouchner, concluded that a new aid organisation was needed that would ignore political/religious boundaries and prioritise the welfare of victims. They created Médecins Sans Frontières in 1971 (Doctors Without Borders).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Civil_War[19]

Katsumoto: @ Deep Sight

You are picking parts of Article 23, interpreting them in YOUR own view, and ignoring other parts. Whether you believe that the risk of diverting aid from civilians is unavoidable in every conflict or not is irrelevant. Once it is proven that aid was diverted from the group it was meant for under Article 23, the Nigerian side is no longer culpable. The article lists several conditions and you decided to focus on only one. You are introducing opinion and conjecture in a bid to lay guilt at Awo's feet. You are a lawyer and you should know that opinion or conjecture will not convict anyone in a court of law. The court will look at all the conditions to ascertain whether civilians were deliberately targeted.

(a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination - Aid was diverted

(b) that the control may not be effective - it was not effective because many died from starvation even before total blockade was imposed in June 1969

(c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods - [b]Biafra did gain several advantages. It obtained funds from relief agencies; it used to funds to procure arms and to establish its own currency.[/b]

(e) The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may make such permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers - Nigeria placed conditions which were rejected by Ojukwu

Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed - As above, this was rejected by Ojukwu

While you may focus on those individuals that were starved for the six months till the end of the war, others will argue that the move saved more lives. This is now globally accepted. Even by the relief agencies.

Katsumoto: We have to agree to disagree. You are seeking to invalidate Article 23 of the Geneva convention with your opinion. I do not wish to challenge your opinion so as to debate it.

With regards to the two falsehoods, I didn't go silent, I have made my point and didn't see a need to keep repeating myself. Just as I am not seeking to repeat myself to rebut your last post.

If anyone believes that the Nigerian side deliberately starved civilians, then they should make a case to the ICC.

Thanks for being civil.

Deep Sight:

Many thanks for the time and points also: I would like to assure you that your points are not lost on me and I actually agree with a lot of the things you have said. I also must assure you that I am not in the league of those who seek to demonize the Chief or lay any blame soley at his feet. I am of the view that all key parties were culpable in many respects. Gowon for Aburi; Ojukwu for goat-headedly insisting on secession (proably the biggest culprit) Awo for some of his policies and many others for many more. I must say though, that Chief Awolowo was an outstanding intellectual of the calibre of any of the greatest minds in history anywhere in the world.

ndu_chucks:

I thank Deep Sight, Katsumoto, ACM10 and others for the entertainment. Deep Sight's bolded statement above is completely accurate and I believe that the posters I mentioned are very well aware of the accuracy of the statement.

But why una waste so much time with point counter point given your knowledge of the bolded? abi una be debating eran iya ni? una must either be the academic types of ogbanje lawyers.

Deep Sight:

Many thanks for the time and points also: I would like to assure you that your points are not lost on me and I actually agree with a lot of the things you have said. I also must assure you that I am not in the league of those who seek to demonize the Chief or lay any blame soley at his feet. I am of the view that all key parties were culpable in many respects. Gowon for Aburi; Ojukwu for goat-headedly insisting on secession (probably the biggest culprit) Awo for some of his policies and many others for many more. I must say though, that Chief Awolowo was an outstanding intellectual of the calibre of any of the greatest minds in history anywhere in the world.

Katsumoto: Just want to pick a few holes in Adichie’s knowledge and analytical ability.

1. The object of a blockade is not to starve your enemy but to restrict the flow of armaments to it. If your enemy continues to receive arms, it continues to fight. Since no man who can’t feed himself has no business fighting a war, the RATIONAL action is to surrender once you run out of food and arms. Blockade is a military tactic; since Awolowo was not a military man and he was surrounded by military men, men who had trained at the Royal Military College Sandhurst, the credit for the blockade can’t be Awo’s

2. Awo did not prevent an Igbo man (Azikiwe) from ruling the West; Azikiwe’s NCNC lost the election We are yet to see the results of the elections according to the NCNC which gave it victory in 1951.

See election results below
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Oi0aVR4YkmUC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=1956+election+NCNC&source=bl&ots=xlo8I8O_iF&sig=jmQDabaMysM0SG7MMZI3yFZ49dg&hl=en&ei=004zTvWKL4OnsALHmdTtCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=1956%20election%20NCNC&f=false

In any case, what business did Zik have in wanting to rule outside his region? Could he love the Western region as much as the people from the Western region? When some Igbo belabor this point, one would think that the Easterners had allowed a Yoruba man to be premier of the Eastern region but the Westerners prevented the Easterners from ruling the West.

3. I am disappointed in Adichie’s interpretation of Awo’s speech to the Western leaders in Ibadan just before the war started. Awo said and I quote “If the Eastern Region is allowed by acts of omission or commission to secede from or opt out of Nigeria, then the Western Region and Lagos must also stay out of the Federation.” One would have expected Adichie to have better comprehension skills. What part of that quote expresses the intention of Awo to secede with the Eastern region?

4. Another lie that is told by many Igbo people is that Awo gave them only £20 for the millions they left in their bank accounts. The facts are that Igbo people took their savings and contributed it to the war effort. The grouse with the £20 pound policy is that Biafran pounds were obviously worthless at the end of the war and many were expecting the Nigerian government to exchange the Biafran notes for Nigerian notes. That would have introduced serious inflation and would have been economic suicide. Did the Biafrans return the £40million in the central banks in PortHarcourt and Enugu, the £53million in circulation, and the £2 million stolen from the Benin central bank? Igbo people were able to recover their properties in the West, and the rent which accrued from it but were unable to recover their properties in PortHarcourt which was in their own region.

5. Adichie states the Igbo held many positions in Nigeria because they were receptive to Western education. So the other groups in Nigeria weren’t receptive to Western education?

6. Gowon implemented most of the provisions from Aburi, the blame for war lay with Ojukwu who insisted on 100% implementation. The sticking point in any case, was that Ojukwu insisted that the Nigerian Head of State not have the power to appoint and fire regional governors i.e Ojukwu. This is quite an irony considering each region had the right to elect its own officials until Igbo sons organized the first coup and Ironsi unified the entire country. However, you dice it, Ndigbo were responsible for the events leading to the war.

7. Adichie’s insincerity and naivety comes to the fore when she argues that Ojukwu was right to ignore Gowon’s offer for a relief corridor because Airlifts were safer and also offered the opportunity to bring in much needed arms. First, Ojukwu charged landing fees to relief organisations which were providing FREE food to starving Biafrans. Second, Ojukwu refused different landing times for aid shipments because he wanted to continue smuggling in arms. Ojukwu’s people were dying and food should have been a priority over arms and money. He was in the weaker position against Gowon and had no right to make demands. He was also wrong to make extreme demands of the relief agencies. Does Adichie know the objectives of war? See excerpts from Fiona Terry's book "Codemmed to Repeat?: The Paradox Of Humanitarian Action' in the link below.

http://books.google.gr/books?id=KxiKPeQyiakC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=landing+fees+biafra+ojukwu&source=bl&ots=9b32DbMfDR&sig=xPMnD19K0czQY9pPkxa1WRXEBlI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Atl0UPmcKInOswbwmYBo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=landing%20fees%20biafra%20ojukwu&f=false

No one can deny Ndigbo’s right to feel the pains of the war but it appears that many Igbos want to continue twisting facts to further cement their victim mentality. It is obvious that the propaganda spread by Achebe has corrupted many Igbo young persons. When you tell your stories, be prepared to listen to the stories of the other side.