It's sad Seun is allowing tribalist Yoruba peeps and MOD to ruin his business.

The earlier he takes action the better for him. No need reminding him that before Facebook, there was HI5 and MySpace.

I am sure Seun has come a along way to loose goodwill now.

Imagine the reckless and dishonest citation Jarus gave to Achebe in the name of 'Nairalander' rather that referring to the tribalist section that nominated him.

Dede1:

I use to know one Samuel L. Akintola. The last time I checked, Samuel is not Yoruba.

Who has denied that Yoruba embrace Christianity and other religion or whats your point?

3itNg:
He's still Ibo....

China Ashebi's name is in the NL hall of shame 2012 not because he's Igbo, but because he disappointed many who had high regard for him when he published those LIES. He is a liar and rightly belongs to the Hall of Shame.

Live with it, Ok?

I hope he does something Good next year so he can ßξ in the hall of fame once again..

GARRI (x7):

He brought lies, hatred and bigotry to the table. His mission is to poison the minds of Igbo youths and all who take him seriously.

He is highly respected in the international community and he wishes to Ʊ$£ that to spread lies and hatred...

Chinua Achebe is a disgrace and belongs to SHAME's Hall

I challenge you to point to a single lie in his memoir if u've actually read it.

dayokanu:

Who has denied that Yoruba embrace Christianity and other religion or whats your point?

Yoruba are bent on messing with people in the cesspit called Nigeria. They tend to point filthy fingers at other people. Sometimes, they seemed delusional and fall for everything and it shows. In one instance, they are for a fellow descending from sky and in another they are for another drunk ascending to the sky. Yet in another instance, Yoruba are for another addict heading to Mecca.

If he deserve to be in the list what happens to the tinunbu of all people? Fashola ?yes he Is as good as his boos
Bode golf
Kai here na children galleries

Dede1:

Yoruba are bent on messing with people in the cesspit called Nigeria. They tend to point fifty fingers at other people. Sometimes, they seemed delusional and fall for everything and it shows. In one instance, they are for a fellow descending from sky and in another they are for another drunk ascending to the sky

This above applies to you and some of your people who are fascinated by Oduduwa. Everyday they lift up their eyes and pray to somebody who basically did the reverse of what Oduduwa did!

Aigbofa:

This above applies to you and some of your people who are fascinated by Oduduwa. Everyday they lift up their eyes and pray to somebody who basically did the reverse of what Oduduwa did!

Do not forget about Yoruba indebtedness to one crack head heading to Mecca.

ACM10:

I challenge you to point to a single lie in his memoir if u've actually read it.

That Awolowo committed genocide on ibos so he could rule Nigeria.

”It is my impression that Awolowo was driven by an overriding ambition for power, for himself and for his Yoruba people. There is, on the surface at least, nothing wrong with those aspirations.

“However, Awolowo saw the dominant Igbos at the time as the obstacles to that goal, and when the opportunity arose–the Nigeria-Biafra war–his ambition drove him into a frenzy to go to every length to achieve his dreams. In the Biafran case it meant hatching up a diabolical policy to reduce the numbers of his enemies significantly through starvation — eliminating over two million people, mainly members of future generations.”

Senseless

Hahahahahaha..so the Igbos are pained that Achebe is in the hall of shame? Oma she oo..he deserves to be there though, he's a decrepit old man who caused division among the youths with his ridiculous book. Even foreign reviewers agree that Mr. Achebe was obviously partisan in his book.

As for the retar.ds Afam and Berem, whether you like it or not, NL is the most visited site in Nigeria, what useless awards have Linda Ikeji or Bella naija won? Are Facebook and twitter top sites because of some useless awards? NL is waxing stronger, now with a custom designed forum and a creative advert model, it was featured of forbes African startups to watch, almost any search on google redirects to NL, even Thisday quoted a thread from NL in one of their articles, CoolFM discusses topic from NL romance section on their shows, many sites I've seen lift stories from threads on NL verbatim!

If you think NL is useless and tribalistic like you're all wont to claim, leave the phocking site alone na, abi she tipa ni?

I've known NL since late 2005 and the tribalism here was started MOSTLY by the igbos! During the era of the likes of bawomolo and co., the igbos attacked yorubas wantonly but probably due to the fact that most yorubas here saw it as harmless rants, they didn't really reply so it never descended to the war-like level we have now.

Sincere 9gerian: I've always had the suspicion that NL has been hijacked by Yoruba and ACN cabal. Nothing confirms this suspicion more than the appearance of Prof Achebe's name on ACN/Yoruba hall of shame.

Remove the acn please. I agree with you that there is definitely a yoruba agenda on nairaland.

Dede1:

Yoruba are bent on messing with people in the cesspit called Nigeria. They tend to point filthy fingers at other people. Sometimes, they seemed delusional and fall for everything and it shows. In one instance, they are for a fellow descending from sky and in another they are for another drunk ascending to the sky. Yet in another instance, Yoruba are for another addict heading to Mecca.

Sorry to break it to you but Yorubas are not a monolith. People are free to believe whatever they want. Its called freedom of religion. Heard it before? Now how is this relevant to Achebe and his ongoing possible induction into the Nairaland Hall of Shame again?

Ayam laughing

Dede1:

Yoruba are bent on messing with people in the cesspit called Nigeria. They tend to point filthy fingers at other people. Sometimes, they seemed delusional and fall for everything and it shows. In one instance, they are for a fellow descending from sky and in another they are for another drunk ascending to the sky. Yet in another instance, Yoruba are for another addict heading to Mecca.

Your lack of brains continue to attain new heights you this useless old man. Everyone knows that every culture has its share of myths and folklore; the chinese believe the world was created from 2 eggs called yin and yang, are they delusional too? The sumerians believe god descended from the sky to mould the earth, are the crackheads too?

Abeg dont let this discussion distract you from voting oo

Achebe for Hall of Shame

gidiMonsta: Hahahahahaha..so the Igbos are pained that Achebe is in the hall of shame? Oma she oo..he deserves to be there though, he's a decrepit old man who caused division among the youths with his ridiculous book. Even foreign reviewers agree that Mr. Achebe was obviously partisan in his book.

As for the retar.ds Afam and Berem, whether you like it or not, NL is the most visited site in Nigeria, what useless awards have Linda Ikeji or Bella naija won? Are Facebook and twitter top sites because of some useless awards? NL is waxing stronger, now with a custom designed forum and a creative advert model, it was featured of forbes African startups to watch, almost any search on google redirects to NL, even Thisday quoted a thread from NL in one of their articles, CoolFM discusses topic from NL romance section on their shows, many sites I've seen lift stories from threads on NL verbatim!

If you think NL is useless and tribalistic like you're all wont to claim, leave the phocking site alone na, abi she tipa ni?

I've known NL since late 2005 and the tribalism here was started MOSTLY by the igbos! During the era of the likes of bawomolo and co., the igbos attacked yorubas wantonly but probably due to the fact that most yorubas here saw it as harmless rants, they didn't really reply so it never descended to the war-like level we have now.

Let them continue to whine. I joined in 2006 and it was a daily dose of Ojuku, biafra, Awolowo and attacking Yorubas daily few Yorubas responded and most didnt even pay them any attention

It was around 2009 before Yorubas started attacking them in full force and It was last year when I joined fully

So Achebe being in the hall if shame can make some people to have headache. When he was in hall of fame last year nobody opens a thread to discuss it just like this.

I believe prof. Chinua achebe deserves to be nominated into the hall of shame this year because he is an ungrateful man who schooled mostly in the western region.

demmy:

Sorry to break it to you but Yorubas are not a monolith. People are free to believe whatever they want. Its called freedom of religion. Heard it before? Now how is this relevant to Achebe and his ongoing possible induction into the Nairaland Hall of Shame again?

In your damnable wild imagination, you did not think it is oddity to put someone who enjoyed freedom of expression into your idiotic Nairaland’s hall of shame? Probably, your psychotic skull have not heard people are free to express opinions freely.

Dede1: In your damnable wild imagination, you did not think it is oddity to put someone who enjoyed freedom of expression into your idiotic Nairaland’s hall of shame? Probably, your psychotic skull have not heard people are free to express opinions freely.

Go and use your freedom of expression in the America you are and declare Bin Laden your Hero and you are trying to be Hitler. Shebi na Freedom of speech

Man arrested for Facebook post praising school shooting
A man in Medina, Ohio, was charged by police for “inducing panic” after he posted a status update on Facebook that read: “I’m so happy someone shot up all those little (explatives). Viva la school shootings!!!” WKYC’s Dave Summers reports.

What happened to Freedom of Speech here?

demmy:

That Awolowo committed genocide on ibos so he could rule Nigeria.



Senseless

Refer to this thread on our debate with Katsumoto on starvation policy masterminded by Awo
https://www.nairaland.com/1112476/chinua-achebe-82-remember-differently/16

Deep Sight: Hello Katsumoto,

Thanks for your well reasoned response. I will give my comments after you have concluded: i.e: by responding to Qquestion 3. In that regard you asked me for an excerpt. Here goes -

- 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. So I decided to stop sending the food there. In the process the civilians would suffer, but the soldiers will suffer most."

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.

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.

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.

ACM10: [size=28pt]What does international law say about Awo-Gowon criminal action?[/size]

[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]

http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule53

Deep Sight:

Thanks again for your comments.

Going by your comments, we can safely conclude that -

1. A blockade was in place at all times from the commencement of hostilities

2. The Federal Government however permitted air shipments of relief items into Biafra

3. Cheif Awolowo expressly claimed personal responsibility for stopping these air shipments.

The above, it is clear, is beyond cavil.

Once you accept this (which you have already accepted in your write-up, but, to avoid mis-understandings as we proceed, I seek an unequivocal "Yes" from you, regarding 1 - 3 above). . .then we shall proceed to discuss the question as to whether or not such an action stands up against international law at the time.

Thank you.

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.

Katsumoto: @ Deep Sight

Please read the following article


"It is an emotive accusation but, in Biafra at least, it turned out to be wide of the mark. The Nigerian government was actually remarkably forgiving when Biafra finally surrendered, integrating its army and civil service back into federal structures and compensating people for property lost during the war. International observers testified that they found no evidence of genocide, although the famine and war death had been considerable.

Oxfam subsequently admitted that it had fallen "hook line and sinker" for a propaganda campaign by Biafra's government who hired a PR firm to promote their cause. The image which was to become iconic was of starving children, which journalists, like the young Frederick Forsyth, realised "struck a nerve" because they reminded postwar Europe of the Nazi death camps.

The ICRC's silence during the Holocaust made it particularly vulnerable to Kouchner's accusation. But objective historical accounts shows that it its relief effort was at least as effective as that of the other agencies and its attempts to preserve its neutrality was a principled contrast to those who allowed themselves to be politically manipulated. The government of Biafra effectively taxed agencies bringing in supplies and used the money to keep the war going. It turned down the offer of a supervised "land corridor", realising how dramatic the night flights had become, and also used them as cover for bringing in weapons along the same route.

Most humanitarian agencies now accept that their intervention in Biafra was badly thought out and, by prolonging the war for an extra 18 months, exacerbated the suffering of those that they were trying to help. If the "business" of humanitarian aid is to reduce human suffering than actions which increase it should presumably be subject to some sort of sanction. Yet it is doubtful if anyone suffered any disciplinary action from Biafra. On the contrary, it proved a huge boost to the careers of a number of individuals and to a creed of "political humanitarianism" that became a prototype for future interventions."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/20/humanitarianerrors


See link below for proof of Ojukwu not allowing relief agencies to drop aid at times different from arms drops. Taking that and article 23 together, you will realize that it is almost impossible to charge let alone convict anyone on the Nigerian side for genocide or deliberate starvation.

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


Read the assessment of the Canadian observer, General Hamilton, in the link below.

It is on page 4 towards the mid-section.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ai9mAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1YoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3771

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.

ACM10: 1. This is coldhearted policy championed by Awo. There exist a clause in Geneva Convention of 1949 which clearly stated that civilians should always be protected!

2. In a bid to gain an advantage. Awo-Gowon inflicted collateral damage on the civilian populations. The term collateral damage refers to any harm to civilians or damage to civilian structures that occur during an attack on an otherwise legitimate military objective. The issue of proportionality comes into play when determining whether the collateral damage caused by an attack is enough to render the attack unlawful. [size=18pt]It is forbidden to launch an attack that is expected to cause loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that is "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage" that is anticipated from the attack. This military and philosophical concept of proportionality is applied within two frameworks of war:[/size]

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.

3. You must understand the principle of distinction, the legal obligation of combatants and military leaders to distinguish between civilians and combatants. This distinction involves an understanding of the legal definition of each category of people, the ability to recognize civilians and civilian objects during times of war, and the obligation to protect civilians once identified.


Permit me to quote Awo once more. . .

"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]."

.

Deep Sight:

Thanks again for your response. I therefore take it that you agree to the Facts I enumerated [1 - 3] in my earlier post.

Now, I would like to say that I do enjoy discussing difficult subjects, as debate and discourse are life long passions of mine. I say this to draw your attention to a very deliberate method of discussion I choose to employ when the subject is particularly touchy, complicated, controversial, convoluted and extensive.

In such discussions it is generally impossible to reach a universal consensus on all issues. For this reason I choose an approach that streamlines the key question and breaks it down without much ado. For this same reason I deliberately choose not to be drawn the many side-questions available in this discussion, particularly because I do not even contest them. For example, on the side-question as to Ojukwu's culpability, I needn't be drawn because I do not contest it. He is doubtless culpable in many ways - not the least of which was the act of secession in itself.

Nevertheless that is not the subject of this thread: this thread arose from the allussions madeby Professor Achebein his book There was a country to Chief Awolowo's role re: the question of starvation, and Chimamanda Adichie's response to the ensuing debate.

As such, I frame my questions to govern the central question raised: Is it true that Chief Awolowo was responsible for the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Biafrans in terms of his self confessed decision to "stop sending food there"?

As far as the facts disclose, and as confirmed in the illustrious Cheif's own words - It is true. Let me quickly add that this does not mean that Ojukwu does not also share responsibility. He does. As I said before, Ojukuwu's culpability, I do not contest. It is useless to try to argue as many do here:painting either party a saint and the reverse party a demon. Both are culpable, and many others too. But in specific answer to the topic, definitely Awo was responsible for a decision that starved thousands to death. That cannot be disputed.

This is for the following reasons - - ->

1. A blockade was in place at all times from the commencement of hostilities;

2. The Federal Government however permitted air shipments of relief items into Biafra;

3. Cheif Awolowo expressly claimed personal responsibility for stopping these air shipments.

In his words, he very well knew that "civilians would suffer" and as such, the act must be classed deliberate.

The foregoing facts are not contested by you.

As such, in order not to be drawn into an endless slew of possible side-questions (Should Biafra have surrendered; Was Ojukwu also culpable; Could Biafra have permitted greater access, etcetera ad infinitum - all of which I firmly accede to and do not contest) - I frame the question that arises from facts 1 - 3 above in very conscise and simple terms - to wit: Was the act of "stopping the air shipments" acceptable under International Law governing War at the time?

This is a most simple question: for which the answer from any honest discussant should be yea or nay only.

In deriving that answer, we need only have recourse to the relevant laws themselves.

Now, as you already know, Article 23 of the 1949 Geneva states as follows -



The question is therefore whether or not Awo's directive falls foul of the foregoing or not. Simple. Nothing more, and nothing less.

In answering that question, if it were put to me personally, I'd have to look at the qualifications: in this case possible diversion of the relief items cardinally. To be very succint: I do not believe that this risk can ever be eliminated in any war.

As such the fact that the risk exists is not by itself sufficient. That is a given. It has to be the case that the diversion is of such a nature that the relief intended is not being met. This was Awo's argument - but one critical factor belies it - the incontestible fact that supplies - no matter how meagre - and no matter how diverted - were reaching Biafra. This was stopped by Awo - as he personally admits.

Please note the following -



My friend, given that the Biafra conflict had already become a major international humanitarian spectacle, you will have little traction in defending such a decision taken at such a time. It is plausible to argue as you do, and as Awo does, that it brought the war to a swifter end, but it could never be plausible to state that it was a neccesary means so to do: given the fact of the balance of strength, which was in any case overwhelmingly in favour of Nigeria. In other words, Nigeria would anyhow have won that war: and not significantly later than it did in fact - thus rendering it not apt to argue that the decision "to stop sending food there" was strictly necessary."

My position on this matter as far as the law is concerned - is that -

1. Under the Geneva 1949, Nigeria had a legal responsibility to allow aid through to civilians - unless stoppage of such was STRICTLY necessary.

2. Stoppage of the aid was NOT stricty necessary in view of the balance of strength.

Based on the foregoing I would conclude that the directive by Awo certainly fell foul of International Law and Humanitarian Standards.

Now, I should add one last thing. And this is a point glossed over by many. I also gloss over it for the simple fact that I prefer to deal with the law of the matter and not the morality of the matter. But I must tell you that in this instance the morality of the matter cannot be ignored. I speak specifically of the fact this is was supposedly a war of unity: a war directed towards forcing our own fellow country men to remain part of Nigeria against their will - in this kind of war, it then becomes more spectacularly cruel to "stop sending food there" in the words of Awo - especially when one notes that the Nigerian bombers also targetted farms to ensure that no food could be produced.

Say what you may: but such a directive, particularly in the circumstances of already existing famine I insist, cannot be defended before the courts of man; and certainly will not be heard for in the court of God.

Many thanks.

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.

Deep Sight:

"Targetted", I do not know, but I surely know, as you surely know, and as Awo said, that he made the decision fully alive to the fact that there would be civilian casualties of that decision. That is sufficient to class the decision as "deliberate".



As I said previously this is not a risk that can be obviated in any conflict. Perhaps the relevance of my mentioning that missed you: the relevance rests in the fact that any party that seeks to suppress aid in any conflict can very easily deploy this excuse.It would never fail in any circumstance:on account of the ever present and inalienable risk of diversion.

In short, it is a very handy and easily accessible excuse in every such circumstance.

And therein lies the fine nuance in my argument which seems to escape you: namely that an instance which would justify such must be shown to be absolutely and unavoidably necessary.

I am certain that you would not contend that it was absolutely and unavoidably necessary in the instance referred to.



Katsumoto! I am mildly surprised. How could you possibly argue that a control meaure is not effective for the reason that the problem already existed before directives that worsened it were issued?

This is like arguing that a doctor bears no culpability in his mis-treatment of a patient since the patient was already ill.

Surely, you see what a mis-footed line of reasoning that is. Surely you do.



This is unavoidable in any conflict: and as such I would argue that the question of necessity should be the prizm from which this condition should be viewed and interpreted.



Of course it is possible for any power to place conditions that would in effect give its armies corridors for invasion. This makes no sense to me - because the fact of the matter is that this matter is not in dispute. Every power under siege would necessarily be circumspect about such. Do I hear someone whiser Trojan Horse?

What is in dispute is the fact that Chief Awolowo decided to stop the air shipments - and his reasons for same, are clearly stated. He also acknowldged that he knew civilians would die as a consequence. So it was a decision knowingly taken.

At this juncture I will pause to point out two falsehoods which you stated in your arguments but which you now have resiled from or gone silent on, once they were pointed out.

Falsehood 1: You made allusion to the fact that the International Laws on this matter could not cover the Biafra Scenario because the relevant laws post-dated 1970.

That has been shown to be manifestly untrue. And I scratch my head wondering why you would have made that somewhat odd attempt. Not only was the insinuation false; I am disturbed that you would seek to exculpate the Chief based only on a technicality - on such a deeply moral issue! ! !

Once pointed out, you have gone silent on that one.

It gives very serious and worrying reason to question your objectivity in this matter: that you even attempted to make such an argument.

Falsehood 2: You clearly stated in your earlier arguments that in a Federal Cabinet full of military officers, Chief Awolowo couldnot be the authour of the policy.

The fact of the matter is that he specifically claimed authourship!

Again you have gone silent on this one.



Again, as I stated above, this must needs be interpreted with the nuance of strict necessity, which was not the case. The reason that this must be the way to interprete it, is the simple fact that if given the literal rule of interprepation, no power can EVER be held responsible in this regard because they would ofcourse always prescribe conditions that would aid their invasionary interests. Gbam.

At this stage I have to ask you again whether you belief that the decision to stop the air shipments was strictly necessary?



First, remember that history is always written by the victorious party in any conflict; and so i'd be circumspect.

Can I ask you whether or not you accept the fact that Nigerian victory was inevitable regardless - and not at too great a distance from the date of cessation of hostilities?

And in view of that fact, I also ask you if such a policy was as such necessary.

Now finally, I note that you made no comment on that which I said regarding the morality of such a policy in a civil war of unity: a war directed towards forcing our own fellow country men to remain part of Nigeria against their will? Do you think its not a cardinal issue?

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.

gidiMonsta: Hahahahahaha..so the Igbos are pained that Achebe is in the hall of shame? Oma she oo..he deserves to be there though, he's a decrepit old man who caused division among the youths with his ridiculous book. Even foreign reviewers agree that Mr. Achebe was obviously partisan in his book.

As for the retar.ds Afam and Berem, whether you like it or not, NL is the most visited site in Nigeria, what useless awards have Linda Ikeji or Bella naija won? Are Facebook and twitter top sites because of some useless awards? NL is waxing stronger, now with a custom designed forum and a creative advert model, it was featured of forbes African startups to watch, almost any search on google redirects to NL, even Thisday quoted a thread from NL in one of their articles, CoolFM discusses topic from NL romance section on their shows, many sites I've seen lift stories from threads on NL verbatim!

If you think NL is useless and tribalistic like you're all wont to claim, leave the phocking site alone na, abi she tipa ni?

I've known NL since late 2005 and the tribalism here was started MOSTLY by the igbos! During the era of the likes of bawomolo and co., the igbos attacked yorubas wantonly but probably due to the fact that most yorubas here saw it as harmless rants, they didn't really reply so it never descended to the war-like level we have now.

it's in Nyamiris genes. They start fights they can't finish and always cry foul when they've been resoundingly fccked. They started the tribalism on NL but as everyone is giving them a dose of their medicines these days, they can't seem to handle it. The deluded beings feel it's their God's given right to hurl insults at others. IT'S THE IBO THING-THEY ALWAYS START SOMETHING THEY CAN'T SEE THROUGH. HISTORY ALL OVER AGAIN.

Dede1:


In your damnable wild imagination, you did not think it is oddity to put someone who enjoyed freedom of expression into your idiotic Nairaland’s hall of shame? Probably, your psychotic skull have not heard people are free to express opinions freely.

First you all claimed he was speaking the truth, now it was his opinion? Which is it?

omayyi :
it's in Nyamiris genes. They start fights they can't finish and always cry foul when they've been resoundingly fccked. They started the tribalism on NL but as everyone is giving them a dose of their medicines these days, they can't seem to handle it. The deluded beings feel it's their God's given right to hurl insults at others. IT'S THE IBO THING-THEY ALWAYS START SOMETHING THEY CAN'T SEE THROUGH. HISTORY ALL OVER AGAIN.

Like killing other regional leaders and crying when their own people are getting killed

Like attacking MidWest and Southwest and crying when they were attacked back

afam4eva: I really don't take a lot of things on Nairaland seriously. No wonder Nairaland has never won any award while the likes of Linda Ikeji, Bella naija etc have won tons of award. This site has become a tribal assembly where tribal warlord congregate and join their hands in fellowship to spread hate and bigotry. Even the mods are also promiting hate and tribalism through their direct and indirect encouragement and inciting machinations. We really don't care what Nairaland thinks of Achebe but what the world think of him. He's one of the most respected Africans and very few people can match his achievement in the literary circles. The opinions of a few no-gooders will not change the respect he commands in the community of superior wisdom.

Look who's talking. Kettle calling pot black.

Dede1:

I use to know one Samuel L. Akintola. The last time I checked, Samuel is not Yoruba.

Egbon, this thing dey pain you.
I pray you don't continue like this o.
You are simply not in control of your mind.

afam4eva:
That's my point exactly. You would hear of Linda Ikeji and Bella Naija on TV and Radio stations but not Nairaland. Why? This is a question the owners of this site need to start asking themselves.

Nairaland is ethnocentric. The owner of nairaland is only interested in getting kobo kobo from people who place adverts for kids to watch. I wonder if advertising on this tribal site is not a waste of resources. Except Seun changes the approach of this Nairaland which with even multiple IDs the members are less than 1m. You insult the people of the South, you insult me, cos we are the most comfortable Nigerians that survive and triump even with zero infrastructural support from Abuja.

Re: Why Is Prof Achebe's Name On NL Hall Of Shame? by demmy(m): 4:11pm
ACM10:

I challenge you to point to a single lie in his memoir if u've actually read it.

That Awolowo committed genocide on ibos so he could rule Nigeria.

”It is my impression that Awolowo was driven by an overriding ambition for power, for himself and for his Yoruba people. There is, on the surface at least, nothing wrong with those aspirations.

“However, Awolowo saw the dominant Igbos at the time as the obstacles to that goal, and when the opportunity arose–the Nigeria-Biafra war–his ambition drove him into a frenzy to go to every length to achieve his dreams. In the Biafran case it meant hatching up a diabolical policy to reduce the numbers of his enemies significantly through starvation — eliminating over two million people, mainly members of future generations.”


Senseless

boss, this dude wrote a memoir, thats his take on what happened. if you have a different opinion, write a damn book! its amazing how we attack things we dont understand in this country.lets get civilized please.

ACM10:
Refer to this thread on our debate with Katsumoto on starvation policy masterminded by Awo
https://www.nairaland.com/1112476/chinua-achebe-82-remember-differently/16

Awolowo masterminded no starvation policy. There was a blockade decided by the Nigerian government to curb Biafrans access to weapons. Biafrans welfare was firmly in the hands of the Biafran leaders. Igbos who remained in the federal territory were neither threatened nor starved nor killed. If the blockade was causing starvation in Biafra what did the Biafran leaders do?

Billyonaire: Nairaland is ethnocentric. The owner of nairaland is only interested in getting kobo kobo from people who place adverts for kids to watch. I wonder if advertising on this tribal site is not a waste of resources. Except Seun changes the approach of this Nairaland which with even multiple IDs the members are less than 1m. You insult the people of the South, you insult me, cos we are the most comfortable Nigerians that survive and triump even with zero infrastructural support from Abuja.

Billion, To some extent you are right,
but on nairaland being a waste of resources, nope you are wrong. When it was still using Google adsense, i normally targets my adword campaigns to nairaland and i swear, nairaland get some organic traffic if well utilized. Really made some good money.
Though i don't know with its own advert.

demmy:

First you all claimed he was speaking the truth, now it was his opinion? Which is it?

I am not surprised the above came from your skewed stream of thought. Who is he in your useless response?

Dede1:


I am not surprised the above came from your skewed stream of thought. Who is he in your useless response?

Who is the big elephant in the room? Are you even following this thread?

demmy:

Awolowo masterminded no starvation policy. There was a blockade decided by the Nigerian government to curb Biafrans access to weapons. Biafrans welfare was firmly in the hands of the Biafran leaders. Igbos who remained in the federal territory were neither threatened nor starved nor killed. If the blockade was causing starvation in Biafra what did the Biafran leaders do?

Awolowo himself admitted to have masterminded the starvation policy in his 1983 interview. . . It is too late to put a spin on that.

"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. So I decided to stop sending the food there. In the process the civilians would suffer, but the soldiers will suffer most.".

ACM10:
Awolowo himself admitted to have masterminded the starvation policy in his 1983 interview. . . It is too late to put a spin on that.

Nobody is putting a spin on it.
What people is telling you is that you should stop blaming Awolowo the Great for your starvation. If oju-iku your dumb ediotic leader have not been a m0ron, he would have prepare how to feed you.
You are fighting and want who you are fighting to feed you?
What nonsense.