Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,153,454 members, 7,819,666 topics. Date: Monday, 06 May 2024 at 08:15 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Britain Toys With Woes Of Another Biafra 7 (633 Views)
National Assembly Unduly Roping Presidency In Its Woes – Adesina / Buruji Kasamu To Fayose: Leave Aisha Buhari Out Of Your Woes; Face The Issues / Britain Toys With Woes Of Another Biafra War - Sun Newspaper (2) (3) (4)
(1) (Reply)
Britain Toys With Woes Of Another Biafra 7 by Nobody: 10:43pm On Nov 13, 2015 |
BY OUR REPORTER ON NOVEMBER 6, 2015 COLUMNS,
DURO ONABULE
Following the arrest of some Nigerians demonstrating for
the resuscitation of sovereign state of Biafra, Britain is back
at its pastime of trying to steal the show with its claim of
what it called its civil war time record of preserving the
sanctity of Nigeria’s national borders. Certainly with its
latest action, Britain is still exhibiting the mentality of the
1885 Berlin Conference of land grabbers in Africa.
Unfortunately, Britain’s civil war time record of purportedly
preserving Nigeria’s national border was discredited at that
time and even now.
Obviously, only for its self-serving economic and political
interests, Britain will ever muddle Nigeria’s political
problems to further relics of its political past. Otherwise,
why did Britain not preserve the sanctity of the national
borders of the federation of Malaysia and Singapore? On the
contrary, Britain granted independence to the two countries
as separate nations. Similarly, why did Britain not preserve
the sanctity of the national border of the federation of
Rhodesia and Nyasaland? Remarkably, Britain carved out
three separate independent countries, namely northern
Rhodesia (today’s Zimbabwe)’ southern Rhodesia (today’s
Zambia) and Nyasaland (now known as Malawi). Britain’s
record of experimenting with federal form of government in
its colonial territories collapsed all over. West Indies
federation broke into sovereign Jamaica and Trinidad-
Tobago. Even the federation of small islands, like St. Kitts-
Anguilla broke into separate independent nations and are
today, all members of Commonwealth and United Nations
In flaunting its so-called record of preserving Nigerian
national border, Britain is engaging in diplomatic fraud. After
Nigeria’s civil war, what was Britain’s record on
preservation of national borders in Africa and other parts of
the world? Was Britain not a major party to the enunciation
of the United Nation’s principle of self-determination for
citizens all over the world? Did Britain not spearhead the
break-up of Sudan into two independent nations of Northern
Sudan and Southern Sudan through United Nation’s
principle of self-determination? Did Britain not support the
break-up of erstwhile Ethiopia into the current two
independent nations of Ethiopia and Eritrea through the
United Nations principle of self-determination? What
therefore, is peculiar in Nigeria to make its good or bad
prospects a matter of life or death for Britain? Whether
Nigeria will or should break up or not will and should be the
mutual agreement of its various peoples but surely NOT in
any way a choice for Britain. This intruder should, therefore,
shut up and keep off.
By the way, Britain was delighted at the break-up of its
powerful rival, Soviet Union into more than 20 separate
independent republics, the most outstanding of which is
today’s Russia. Noticeably, Britain, the self-proclaimed
armed guard of national borders of nations like Nigeria, was
laughably helpless when Russia invaded Ukraine to enforce
the secession of Crimea, which is now a Russian
protectorate. Ukraine was formerly a part of the defunct
Soviet Union.
There is a wrong message about Biafra. At the mere
mention of that entity, the mind goes straight to the
unsuccessful attempt of the defunct eastern region of
Nigeria to secede. We do not seem to have learnt any
lesson from the war, an arrogance, which, therefore,
exhibits contempt and threat of government might to crush
any protest, which even if genuine, is instantly perceived as
an attempt to repeat the war exercise. Hopefully, we will not
go that way again. And the lesson of the war is that
government at the state and federal levels must look into
community complaints and provide remedy instead of
throwing its weight of federal/state might about.
Rather surreptitiously, Biafra is no longer identifiable with
only secession of South East from Nigeria. Instead, Biafra
has become a figure of expression of whatever grievances
of groups or sections all over the country. During his tenure
as elected president, Olusegun Obasanjo said he was
serving Nigeria and not Yorubaland. Accordingly, for eight
years, South West was not developed. None of Lagos-
Ibadan expressway, Sagamu-Benin expressway, Lagos
Abeokuta road or Ibadan-Ife road was touched. South
westerners went Biafran and publicly expressed their
determination to walk out of the Nigerian federation if their
political demands at national conference organised by ex-
President Goodluck Jonathan were not met. And only
recently, some south westerners led by former military
governor of Oyo State, General Adeyinka Adebayo,
threatened to reconsider their continued stay in the Nigerian
federation if kidnapping and menace of cattle rearers were
not checked in South West. That was not a threat to the
sanctity of Nigeria’s national borders?
At a critical stage of the constitutional crisis on succeeding
ailing the late President Umar Yar’Adua, Ijaw leader Edwin
Clark went on record that “…..we will secede if our son
(Goodluck Jonathan) is not sworn in as President.”
The North under President Jonathan, lamented loss of
political power and demanded return of the presidency to
the North, failing which Tanko Yakasai went Biafran by
threatening to make Nigeria ungovernable. Has Nigeria
been governable since then? An acceptable form of
secession threat? During the same Jonathan national
political conference, a delegate/emir from Adamawa State
threatened to break away with his kingdom to rejoin his
ethnic group in Cameroon.
Neither is Nigeria the only country facing prospects of
disintegration. Britain is not more secure. But the difference
is that instead of threat or actual use of force, dialogue and
remedy are provided for seeming group or community
grievances. United Nations’ principle of self-determination
applies all over the world, contrary to the bogey of sanctity
of national borders with which Britain is terrorising
Nigerians. When Britain was threatened with disintegration,
the response of the central authorities in London, even if in
panic, was to grant substantial political autonomy to Wales
and Scotland. Even then, Scotland insisted on complete
independence from Britain and two years ago, only narrowly
lost a referendum to that effect. Scotland unilaterally
organised its referendum instead of waiting for Britain’s
grace. In any case, the leader of Scottish government,
Nicola Sturgeon, only a few weeks ago, defied the British
government with assurances that the struggle for Britain’s
disintegration leading to Scotland’s independence was not
yet over. Why did Britain not arrogantly proclaim the
sanctity of its national borders or arrest the Scottish leader,
Nicola Sturgeon?
However, there is this caution for both sides of the Biafra
controversy. None of the agitators or demonstrators is up to
50 years and all don’t have the faintest idea of the agonies
of the war, which broke out 48 years ago. No Nigerian over
50 years would dream of another war. In a war, only
eventual survivors are sure of their survival. Otherwise, as
long as the war continues, nobody is sure of the other’s
survival. Even sometimes, enemies on one side will develop
sympathy for the plight of enemies on the other side. That is
at a most humane stage of a war. Otherwise, in a war,
orphans will emerge if they are lucky. Otherwise, they would
have perished with mums and dads. Widows and widowers
are inevitable products of war and burdens on remnant
families. War, you don’t wish it for your enemy. Your
elimination may even be necessary for the survival of your
war front comrade. There is never any witness to that sad
fact. War? Think it over. Major Roberts was an army officer
in mufti, on a visit to Apapa wharf, a high security area early
in the war. Argument ensued but was not quick enough to
justify his presence in the area. Within seconds, he was shot
dead. That was the standing instruction. The deceased
officer did not die in action and was felled by who would
pass for one of his boys. Casino cinema, Yaba was some
200 kilometres to the nearest war front in Benin, Edo State.
Yet there was fatal bombing by agents of the enemy, leaving
victims among the innocent cinema enthusiasts.
Restless potential prosecutors of another civil war must face
the fact that unlike last time, there are observers,
international observers to, from their home countries,
enforce rules of civilised engagements. These days, you
may not escape charges for crimes against humanity. And
to perfect such criminal charges, satellite television will
beam over all military operations. Also note that national
borders of countries are no longer considered sacrosanct or
inviolate to offer a basis for denying subjects their right to
self-determination. Are countries not, therefore, not
rendered vulnerable to balkanisation? Which country will,
therefore, be safe from disintegration? The simple response
is that even the so-called Balkans of old have self-
balkanised. Yugoslavia, yesteryear beacon against
disintegration, since broke up into various new independent
nations of Serbia, Montenegro and Croatia, among others.
Evwn Czechoslovakia of old also broke into Czech and
Slovak. Heavens did not fall as all the new countries enjoy
mutual respect.
Instead of arrests and trials of Biafran protesters, Nigeria
can learn from Britain by removing possible areas of
grievances of the protesting Biafrans. a major cause of their
grievances is unequal access to development. This is not to
say that President Muhammadu Buhari, or only his
administration is responsible for the causes of the agitation
of the Biafrans. South easterners were most profound in
supporting Obasanjo, even when South West rejected him.
For eight years, nothing was done on the poor
infrastructure, specifically roads in South East. Jonathan
was in power for six years with the solid support of South
East. The massive support for Jonathan from that area
yielded no slight improvement in the state of their roads.
And, of course, the promised second Niger Bridge is still
being awaited. Former Vice President Alex Ekwueme was in
power for four years and South East leaders quarrelled
among themselves on which government – federal or state
– was to construct or reconstruct particular roads because
such roads were not federal roads. Looking back today,
what would it have mattered if the Federal Government of
that time constructed even local government roads in South
East?
On the other hand, whether federal or state roads, Obasanjo
did not touch a single road in South West throughout his
tenure of eight years, for which he is much detested. South
easterners are, therefore, partly responsible for lack of
access to road development. They had opportunities to
utilise their votes against those responsible for
infrastructural decay in South East. Instead, for no purpose,
they voted for their oppressors. Yet, that does not mean the
infrastructural decay in South East should not be redressed.
To leave the situation unredressed is to provide ammunition
for intensifying the capability of the protesters. On the other
hand, massive rehabilitation of roads in South East will
enable Federal Government to easily outflank the Biafran
protesters. We must face the fact that any part of Nigeria –
South West, North West, North East or North – with state of
infrastructural degradation as in South East will always
breed Biafran agitators.
On his part, Senator Shehu Sani sounded unusually cheap
when he falsely accused south easterners who did not
support Buhari for the presidency as sponsors of the Biafran
agitators. These Biafrans demonstrated against former
President Obasanjo, the late President Yar’Adua and ex-
President Jonathan during their respective tenure. Were the
Biafran agitators also sponsored by those who were against
the presidency of these former leaders?
Nigerian government must not swallow the bait of the
British government on a nebulous sanctity of our national
borders. The government should not be tempted to engage
in forceful clampdown on the demonstrators, which will only
generate political tension and turn the boys into heroes.
Areas of grievances of the protesters should be looked into
and redressed, especially the roads. Fortunately, the Senate
Adhoc Committee on Works headed by Barnabas Gemade
has just completed an inspection tour of roads throughout
the South East. The report of the findings on the scale of
erosion in South East, as shown on television, will shock
President Buhari. sunnewsonline.com/new/britain-toys-with-woes-of-another-biafra/ |
Re: Britain Toys With Woes Of Another Biafra 7 by acenazt: 10:44pm On Nov 13, 2015 |
WAIL ON. |
Re: Britain Toys With Woes Of Another Biafra 7 by HARDBUOI: 10:51pm On Nov 13, 2015 |
who wan read diz? 1 Like |
(1) (Reply)
Full Details Of TSA: Dino Melaye Misled Nigerian Senate On N25 Billion Claim / Father Mbaka Speaks Out On Biafra / Attempt Assassination On Ekweremadu And Seat Take Over. ..coincidence?
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 39 |