Has Lesbian Uju seen this yet? Oh, I forgot, Ojukwu was trained in England so he was working for the Queen.

As supporters of Biafra continue to celebrate the success of their stay-at-home directive on May 30 in some states in the Southeast, a publication has surfaced on the internet showing how the former Biafran warlord, the late Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, prevented food aid from getting to thousands of starving Biafran children.

According to Robert Goldstein, the foreign public relations expert Ojukwu contracted to launder Biafra’s image to the outside world, by refusing to allow food aid through the land borders, the Biafran war chief contributed to the death of thousands of starving Biafran children during the three-year Nigerian civil war.

Goldstein wrote: ”It is inconceivable to me that you would stop the feeding of thousands of your countrymen (under auspicies of world organizations such as the International Red Cross, World Council of Churches and many more) via a land corridor which is the only practical way to bring in food to help at this time. It is inconceivable to me that men of good faith would try to twist world opinion in such a manner as to deceive people into believing that the starvation and hunger that is consuming ‘Biafra’ is a plot of Britain, Nigeria and others to commit genocide.


”I cannot in all conscience serve you any longer. Nor can I be a party to suppressing the fact that your starving thousands have the food, medicine and milk available to them…..it can and is ready to be delivered through international organizations to you. Only your constant refusal has stopped its delivery.”



Starving Igbo children during the 1967-70 Nigerian civil war
In his open letter of resignation to Ojukwu, published by Morning Post, Lagos, August 17, 1968, Goldstein stated:

OPEN LETTER OF RESIGNATION TO ODUMEGWU OJUKWU
FROM Robert S. Goldstein
Public Relations Representative of Biafra in the United States
(Published in the Morning Post, Lagos, August 17, 1968)

As your Public Relation’s Representative in the United States, it is my distasteful duty to tender my resignation based on the following points:


POINT 1 – In November of 1967 when we met in Umuahia, you and your Cabinet were very impressive. You told me of the woes of your little Republic, that thousands of people had died, were dying and more were prepared to die for freedom’s sake.

You and your Cabinet told me you believed world opinion would help your cause if you could get your story across.

You expressed the opinion that very few if any people in the United States knew of the plight of the Biafrans.


You asked me to tell the world that Britain had teamed up with Russia in a conspiracy with the Federal Government of Nigeria to murder every Ibo in Biafra. You suggested I use my talents to induce the Press to write about the Biafran side of the war, as at that time all news came out of Lagos.

You will recall I did not take the assignment that day but stayed on several days before deciding to take that job.

To help win the peace

At that time I stated to you and your cabinet that I was taking the assignment making it crystal clear I would try my best to help win the peace not the war.


POINT TWO – I immediately arranged the first world Press conference in Biafra inviting the US Press as well as journalists and television people from England, France, Switzerland, Africa and other parts of the Globe. This was the first news break through. I arranged regular trips into Biafra for the world Press, helped set up stringers, etc., so that your statements and the statements of your Cabinet would be heard.

At that time, I was absolutely positive you were right and your cause was a just one in the best interests of the free world and your countrymen.

POINT THREE – Finally the Republic of Biafra was recognized first by Tanzania, then quickly followed by Gabon, the Ivory Coast and Zambia. Our public relations work was paying off, world opinion was starting to side with us.
Peace talks were arranged at Kampala. I thought that if anyone walked away from the table it would be the Federal Government. But to my dismay it was Biafra that left the Conference. After all the fighting and killing, I knew that peace would not come easy but I could not understand leaving the Peace Conference until the last point was negotiated and the avenue explored.

POINT FOUR – Then urgent telex messages were received from ‘Biafra’ telling of tens of thousands of people starving in the refugee camps, the villages, the bush country – stating if something weren’t done in the next few months over a million women, children and aged would be starved to death. I immediately contacted the Press, urgently petitioned the State Department for action on their part. Food, medicine and milk were sent to the only available ports open for immediate shipment to ‘Biafra’ via land routes through Federal and Biafra territory, under the auspices of world organizations such as the International Red Cross among others.

Then came the incredible answer from ‘Biafra’ that land corridors could not be acceptable until there was a complete ceasefire, and that an airlift was the only solution to feed the starving.

You then appeared before the various Heads of State and representatives of the OAU at Niamey in Niger. I fully expected you to at least accept the world help that was offered your starving throngs. However, you delayed, hoping to use these unfortunates with world sympathy on their side as a tool to further your ambition to achieve war concessions at the upcoming peace talks in Addis Ababa. Thus innocent victims continue to perish needlessly of starvation, the most agonising death that can befall any living creature.

POINT FIVE – This was incredible to me. I am now convinced that I have been used by you and your cabinet to help in military adventures of your origin….using your starving hordes as hostages to negotiate a victory.
If at some later date, following the issuance of this letter, you do concede to allow a mercy land corridor…would you expect me to agree to espouse before the world Press the incredible delay of your decision. What explanation could I honestly give for the needless prolongation of this horror.


Inconceivable acts

I pray this communication may in some small way influence you to move affirmatively, allowing the mercy land corridor to be born.

It is inconceivable to me that you would stop the feeding of thousands of your countrymen (under auspicies of world organizations such as the International Red Cross, World Council of Churches and many more) via a land corridor which is the only practical way to bring in food to help at this time. It is inconceivable to me that men of good faith would try to twist world opinion in such a manner as to deceive people into believing that the starvation and hunger that is consuming ‘Biafra’ is a plot of Britain, Nigeria and others to commit genocide.

POINT SIX – I cannot in all conscience serve you any longer. Nor can I be a party to suppressing the fact that your starving thousands have the food, medicine and milk available to them…..it can and is ready to be delivered through international organizations to you. Only your constant refusal has stopped its delivery.

I am this date, tendering my resignation and am returning to Mr. Collins Obih of the African Continental Bank all the fees you have given me (Letter of Credit No. 354 $400,000 US.)

I have sent your representative in New York a Bond in the amount of 800.000 pounds that I was holding in your behalf. I have also this date, sent the Bond of 200,000 pounds issues by the Central Bankl of Nigeria back to them for disposal.

POINT SEVEN – I am now convinced that one Nigeria is the only solution to peace. I also call upon you Mr. Ojukwu to allow your starving people to be fed. Their well-being is of deep concern to me as well as other right thinking people of the world.


Your acting in the utmost haste in this matter is in my opinion the first step toward any lasting peace in your country.”

Robert S. Goldstein.

https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2017/06/01/historical-excursion-ojukwu-starved-thousands-biafran-children-death/

Ojukwu starved Biafra children to score a cheap point during the war. Have you asked your self why Ojukwu soldiers were all well feed while the children starved to death? Ojukwu did what he thought would help him win a war he started. This is on him not the Queen of England.

Lol.
I keep saying it, the Biafra war was needless and unfortunate.

While the Nigerian government committed a lot of attrocities, the Biafran soldiers had their blame, too.

Little is said of the killing of Niger Deltans and some other ethnic groups by Biafra soldiers. Imagine being welcomed with open arms and then wiping out entire towns.

But today, we only hear of the attrocities of the Nigerian government.

Each sides were as guilty of killings as the other.

Ojukwu was just offering his people as sacrifices to small gods....

The Op is a breed of wastage no need engaging him or her, i decided to avoid fools.

heniford2:
The Op is a breed of wastage no need engaging him or her, i decided to avoid fools.

Fools. When they have nothing to say, the default to insults to expose their foolery. Oga address the issues or gtfo.

If Ojukwu starved innocent women and children to death may Biafra never see the light of the day and may Biafra become the joke of the world and if starvation was initiated and carried out by Nigerians ,may hostilities, militancy, terrorism never leave the country Nigeria until it is wiped off the face of the map, may Nigeria only exist in map and never in reality, may the group or tribe that initiated it become hopelessly useless and remain parasitic with no measurable economic relevance

kettykin:
If Ojukwu starved innocent women and children to death may Biafra never see the light of the day and may Biafra become the joke of the world and if starvation was initiated and carried out by Nigerians ,may hostilities, militancy, terrorism never leave the country Nigeria until it is wiped off the face of the map, may Nigeria only exist in map and never in reality, may the group or tribe that initiated it become hopelessly useless and remain parasitic with no measurable economic relevance

Women and children were starving yet Ojukwu and his soldiers were growing fat. Stop your tantrums and read that article.

naijapips04:


Women and children were starving yet Ojukwu and his soldiers were growing fat. Stop your tantrums and read that article.

Do you realized that Nigeria soldiers destroyed farm lands, wasted food products from donor agencies and refused to allow UNICEF, WCC etc from coming into the war zone

kettykin:

Do you realized that Nigeria soldiers destroyed farm lands, wasted food products from donor agencies and refused to allow UNICEF, WCC etc from coming into the war zone

From this post, we now know those are pure propaganda.

And Biafran soldiers were all singing kumbaya during the war.

kettykin:

Do you realized that Nigeria soldiers destroyed farm lands, wasted food products from donor agencies and refused to allow UNICEF, WCC etc from coming into the war zone

If no be Elizabeth

E no for happen

kettykin:
If Ojukwu starved innocent women and children to death may Biafra never see the light of the day and may Biafra become the joke of the world and if starvation was initiated and carried out by Nigerians ,may hostilities, militancy, terrorism never leave the country Nigeria until it is wiped off the face of the map, may Nigeria only exist in map and never in reality, may the group or tribe that initiated it become hopelessly useless and remain parasitic with no measurable economic relevance

I thought you will respond and debunk what the OP posted.
The sad thing I have observed is that biafrans always blame others and never accept responsibility. Someone else is always responsible.
Oga respond to the issues raised with facts otherwise let all these noise about Nigeria starving million to death stop. Do note I'm not denying the very unfortunate incident, but seeing a fact that it was indeed done by Ojukwu is saddling

kettykin:

Do you realized that Nigeria soldiers destroyed farm lands, wasted food products from donor agencies and refused to allow UNICEF, WCC etc from coming into the war zone

But Ojukwu could release pictures of starving children and women for propaganda purposes yet the pictures of the so called farm lands & foods that were destroyed were no where to be found. If you have any pictures or images of any farmlands, schools, banks, buildings, infrastructures bombed during the war, kindly post them.
Uju Anya and her retardéd folks are so ignorant of the self inflicted agony her greedy ancestors brought upon themselves, rather than blame the Queen.

Uhmm

When will this thread hit the FP?

If true,...

femisplash:

But Ojukwu could release pictures of starving children and women for propaganda purposes yet the pictures of the so called farm lands & foods that were destroyed were no where to be found. If you have any pictures or images of any farmlands, schools, banks, buildings, infrastructures bombed during the war, kindly post them.
Uju Anya and her retardéd folks are so ignorant of the self inflicted agony her greedy ancestors brought upon themselves, rather than blame the Queen.

A simple Google search would answer that for you.

You're a wicked person if you know about the pogroms of 1966, the Nigerian government's failure to deal with the perpetrators and Ojukwu's subsequent declaration of independence, and you still want to blame Igbos.
Remember that what goes around comes around. God is watching.

naijapips04:


From this post, we now know those are pure propaganda.

And Biafran soldiers were all singing kumbaya during the war.

How is it propaganda when even your own soldiers and politicians admitted this?

Are you ashamed that your forefathers were so wicked?

Ngozi123:


How is it propaganda when even your own soldiers and politicians admitted this?

Are you ashamed that your forefathers were so wicked?

You killed Nigerian men, women and children. Don't come acting like you are innocent. From this information, we now know Ojukwu himself prevented aid from getting to the starving children.

Dr Aluko completely destroyed Goldsteins letter in 2012, it was posted here in the previous thread about this

https://www.nairaland.com/3854388/biafra-war-nigeria-starvation-land

Below is what Dr Aluko said


Dr. Aluko:
It is obfuscation at its most blatant to read
Goldstein letter outside of the rationale for action
taken by Ojukwu and the Biafran leadership.
I'll attempt to answer your earlier questions posed
to me alonsgide this, because they are related.
- The first question was why Ojukwu did not, given
that Biafra had shrunk dramatically, not surrender
to save starving Biafrans.


- The second is, to link it to the substance of
Goldstein's letter, why Ojukwu insisted on ceasefire
and the airlift of relief to Biafrans as the only
grounds or conditions for accepting relief.
First, Ojukwu knew that an internationally observed
ceasefire was the only guarantee for the security
and safety of the Biafran. Second, the atrocities
recorded wherever the federal forces liberated lent
credence to that demand. In fact, it made it
imperative, particularly because the Lagos regime
was not prepared to negotiate in true faith for the
amicable end of the conflict.


The war strategy of the Gowon administration was
hell-bent on Biafra's complete surrender without
guarantees. No political and military leader will
agree to that kind of suicide. I'll return to this
point. But let me quote from Susan Cronje's quite
illuminating book, The World and Nigeria: The
Diplomatic History of the Biafran war 1967-1970
( I'd also recommend that you read the other,
Biafra: Britain's Shame). Cronje writes this about
the meeting in Niamey referenced by Goldstein:
"The Nigerian delegation was led by Chief
Awolowo, but General Gowon arrived in Niamey on
16 July and addressed the meeting as an
'observer.'

The main theme of his speech was a
warning that if the 'rebels persist in their
contemptuous attitude to the conference table the
federal government will have no choice but to take
over the remaining rebel-held areas...In military
terms the rebellion is virtually suppressed already.'
But the atmosphere had suibtly changed. hamani
diori had altrady suggested that the committee's
consultative role should be changed to a mediatory
one, and after Gowon's address the committee
went into closed session. Eventually it was
announced that that Ojukwu had been asked to
attend, and Gowon who had already returned to
Lagos flew back to Niamey the following day,
cancelling all engagements. His presence in
Niamey was required not for a meeting with
Ojukwu but to reply to a truce proposal put forward
among others by General Ankrah. This called for a
ten-mile wide demilitarized zone patrolled by
neutral troops to allow relief supplies to pass to
Biafran refugees. According to one account of the
debate, Gowon is said to have turned to General
Ankrah, saying, 'You are a military man: you know
what it is with commanders.'

The suggestion that
he might be unable to restrain his army was
reinforced when he warned the committee that if it
did not see things his way they would have to have
'a Nigeria without me.' According to a Niamey
radio report the following day, General Gowon
rejected the resolution put to him by the O.A.U.
committee; the main points of this resolution were
the establishment of a demilitarized zone and 'an
international force which would include neutral
observers acceptable to both sides.' Ghana and
Cameroun, the broadcast said, had offered
shipping facilities for moving relief supplies.
Ojukwu arrived in Niamey on 19 July in President
Houphet-Boigny's private jet.

The Biafran
delegation, when it was fully assembled, included
Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, the former Nigerian president,
Dr. Okpara, former Eastern Nigerian premier, Sir
Louis Mbanefo, Dr. Eni Njoku and several other
notables; Lagos was not far off in suggesting that
the 'entire rebel leadership' had assembled in
Niger. At the end of the meeting between Ojukwu
and the consltative committee - Gowon had
returned to Lagos two days previously - a
communique was issued. Two versions appear to
be in existence; the one broadcast by Niamey radio
read:

(1) the Nigerian Federal Military Government
and Colonel Ojukwu have agreed to meet
immediately in Niamey under the chairmanship of
President Diori Hamani in order to begin
preliminary talks on a speedy resumption of
Nigerian peace negotiations;

(2) the Nigerian
Federal Military Government and Colonel Ojukwu
have agreed to resume as soon as possible peace
negotiations in Addis Ababa under the auspices of
the O.A.U Consultative Committee on Nigeria.' The
version as broadcast by Lagos - and which does
not pretend to be a verbatim report - said that the
committee had called on both parties to resume
peace talks as soon as possible, '... with the
objecvtive of preserving Nigeria's territiorial
integrity and guaranteeing the security of all its
inhabitants.' The committee said, according to this
broadcast, that 'it will be in contact with the federal
military government, and Ojukwu or his
representativs may at any time contact any
member government of the committee.' The Lagos
version went on to cite two further point of which
ther was no mention in the Niamey version, both
dealing with relief, and appealing to the two sides
to undertake various mesures to alleviate the
suffering among war victims.


In view of the strong criticism that has been
levelled at the Biafran leadership for its
intrasigence, and the high praise heaped o General
Gowon and his Government for humanitarian
concern and magnanimity, it should be stressed
that in Niamey Gowon rejected the O.A.U
proposals for a partial truce and international
policing of relief routes, while Ojukwu was
prepared to accept both these proposals. When
Ojukwu returned to Biafra, he gave a press
conference at which he was asked whether his
invitation to the OAU had meant any form of
recognition of him. For once Ojukwu was cautious
in his reply: 'Let's put it this way. My presence in
Niamey for once represents the O.A.U's acceptance
that there are two sides to a conflict.' He would not
reveal any further details about the forthcoming
Addis Ababa peace talk, but said, 'I find myself in
a rather simillar situation as after Aburi.' He did
not want to say anything in case Lagos started
'interpreting it, and go back to square
one..." (302-303)


The foregoing provides the clear context of the
situation, that it was not Ojukwu, but Gowon who
rejected the proposals by which Ojukwu and the
Biafran leadership was prepared to abide.The
context is clearly established and makes nonsense
of Golsdstein's ground for resignation.

While the Biafran government was prepared to act
without precondition, the Nigerian authorities
persistenly insisted on Biafran surrender. It was a
deliberate and determined argument made to make
certain that the only solution was by a military
solution because Lagos knew that the basic
grounds on which it made its offer of relief was
conditional and unconscionable.

It was to disavow
the very basic reason why Biafra defended itself in
the first place: its sovereignty as a means to the
safety, security and dignity of its population. Now,
were the Gowon administration acting in good
faith, that would be a differet matter. What
guaratees could Biafrans have, had Ojukwu
surrendered as a condition for food? None.
Here is the evidence narrated by John Stremlau in
his The International Politics of the Nigerian Civil
War how Gowon's cable upturned the agreements
reached in May 1968 in kampala between Eni
Njoku and Enahoro in which Eni Njoku had in fact
"conceded the evntuality of one-Nigeria."

As
Stremalau notes, "Whereas Enahoro had left
acceptance of the twelve-state structure implicit
in his propsals, Gowon insisted that before any
agreement was reached the rebels must explictly
embrace the twelve states. In addition, Gowon
stipulated that there would be no question of an
interim commission for the rebel-held areas, there
would be no recruitment and formation of Ibo
units into the federal armed forces, and no
elements of the rebel troops or police would be
allowed to retain their arms. Gowon's instruction,
which did not reach Kampala until shortly after
Enahoro had made his presentation, clearly
reflected the views of the more hawkish elements
in the federal government" (172-173).


To put these in summary:
(a) Ojukwu did not reject relief, he wanted the
security and guarantee of safety for Biafrans. He
was in fact willing to accept the O.A.U's proposals

(b) Gowon and the Lagos administration
manipulated international propaganda, as testified
in the versions of the broadcasts of the Niamey
agreement to further its own goals of the
liquidation of Biafra

(c) The federal government was not, in spite of all
the efforts made by the Biafrans willing to
negotiate peace, they were hell-bent on
"surrender" as the only condition for the survival
of the Biafran population.

If anybody must bear responsbility, it must be
those who kept using the talks to elongate the
suffering of the civilian population, and clearly this
are the 'hawks" who placed the only condition for
peace on Biafra's surrender and liquidation. And
there, you have it.

naijapips04:


You killed Nigerian men, women and children. Don't come acting like you are innocent. From this information, we now know Ojukwu himself prevented aid from getting to the starving children.

Your forefathers starved to death millions of people, predominantly children and the elderly. Now, because you're so ashamed of your actions, you're trying to deflect blame onto Ojukwu and Igbo people in general.

All I have to say to you is this:

If your forefathers/tribesmen were not the ones who were responsible for the starvation of those Biafran children then may you all know peace for generations.

However, if they indeed were responsible, and you are here defending them, then may all of the calamities of those Biafran children befall you and your entire family. Iseeeee

This is what I will be sending all of you genocide deniers from now on.

Ngozi123:


Your forefathers starved to death millions of people, predominantly children and the elderly. Now, because you're so ashamed of your actions, you're trying to deflect blame onto Ojukwu and Igbo people in general.

All I have to say to you is this:

If your forefathers/tribesmen were not the ones who were responsible for the starvation of those Biafran children then may you all know peace for generations.

However, if they indeed were responsible, and you are here defending them, then may all of the calamities of those Biafran children befall you and your entire family. Iseeeee

This is what I will be sending all of you genocide deniers from now on.

Your fore fathers killed thousands of Nigerian men , women and children. Ojukwu allowed those children to start.

gidgiddy:

Dr Aluko completely destroyed Goldsteins letter in 2012, it was posted here in the previous thread about this

https://www.nairaland.com/3854388/biafra-war-nigeria-starvation-land

Below is what Dr Aluko said


Dr. Aluko:
It is obfuscation at its most blatant to read
Goldstein letter outside of the rationale for action
taken by Ojukwu and the Biafran leadership.
I'll attempt to answer your earlier questions posed
to me alonsgide this, because they are related.
- The first question was why Ojukwu did not, given
that Biafra had shrunk dramatically, not surrender
to save starving Biafrans.


- The second is, to link it to the substance of
Goldstein's letter, why Ojukwu insisted on ceasefire
and the airlift of relief to Biafrans as the only
grounds or conditions for accepting relief.
First, Ojukwu knew that an internationally observed
ceasefire was the only guarantee for the security
and safety of the Biafran. Second, the atrocities
recorded wherever the federal forces liberated lent
credence to that demand. In fact, it made it
imperative, particularly because the Lagos regime
was not prepared to negotiate in true faith for the
amicable end of the conflict.


The war strategy of the Gowon administration was
hell-bent on Biafra's complete surrender without
guarantees. No political and military leader will
agree to that kind of suicide. I'll return to this
point. But let me quote from Susan Cronje's quite
illuminating book, The World and Nigeria: The
Diplomatic History of the Biafran war 1967-1970
( I'd also recommend that you read the other,
Biafra: Britain's Shame). Cronje writes this about
the meeting in Niamey referenced by Goldstein:
"The Nigerian delegation was led by Chief
Awolowo, but General Gowon arrived in Niamey on
16 July and addressed the meeting as an
'observer.'

The main theme of his speech was a
warning that if the 'rebels persist in their
contemptuous attitude to the conference table the
federal government will have no choice but to take
over the remaining rebel-held areas...In military
terms the rebellion is virtually suppressed already.'
But the atmosphere had suibtly changed. hamani
diori had altrady suggested that the committee's
consultative role should be changed to a mediatory
one, and after Gowon's address the committee
went into closed session. Eventually it was
announced that that Ojukwu had been asked to
attend, and Gowon who had already returned to
Lagos flew back to Niamey the following day,
cancelling all engagements. His presence in
Niamey was required not for a meeting with
Ojukwu but to reply to a truce proposal put forward
among others by General Ankrah. This called for a
ten-mile wide demilitarized zone patrolled by
neutral troops to allow relief supplies to pass to
Biafran refugees. According to one account of the
debate, Gowon is said to have turned to General
Ankrah, saying, 'You are a military man: you know
what it is with commanders.'

The suggestion that
he might be unable to restrain his army was
reinforced when he warned the committee that if it
did not see things his way they would have to have
'a Nigeria without me.' According to a Niamey
radio report the following day, General Gowon
rejected the resolution put to him by the O.A.U.
committee; the main points of this resolution were
the establishment of a demilitarized zone and 'an
international force which would include neutral
observers acceptable to both sides.' Ghana and
Cameroun, the broadcast said, had offered
shipping facilities for moving relief supplies.
Ojukwu arrived in Niamey on 19 July in President
Houphet-Boigny's private jet.

The Biafran
delegation, when it was fully assembled, included
Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, the former Nigerian president,
Dr. Okpara, former Eastern Nigerian premier, Sir
Louis Mbanefo, Dr. Eni Njoku and several other
notables; Lagos was not far off in suggesting that
the 'entire rebel leadership' had assembled in
Niger. At the end of the meeting between Ojukwu
and the consltative committee - Gowon had
returned to Lagos two days previously - a
communique was issued. Two versions appear to
be in existence; the one broadcast by Niamey radio
read:

(1) the Nigerian Federal Military Government
and Colonel Ojukwu have agreed to meet
immediately in Niamey under the chairmanship of
President Diori Hamani in order to begin
preliminary talks on a speedy resumption of
Nigerian peace negotiations;

(2) the Nigerian
Federal Military Government and Colonel Ojukwu
have agreed to resume as soon as possible peace
negotiations in Addis Ababa under the auspices of
the O.A.U Consultative Committee on Nigeria.' The
version as broadcast by Lagos - and which does
not pretend to be a verbatim report - said that the
committee had called on both parties to resume
peace talks as soon as possible, '... with the
objecvtive of preserving Nigeria's territiorial
integrity and guaranteeing the security of all its
inhabitants.' The committee said, according to this
broadcast, that 'it will be in contact with the federal
military government, and Ojukwu or his
representativs may at any time contact any
member government of the committee.' The Lagos
version went on to cite two further point of which
ther was no mention in the Niamey version, both
dealing with relief, and appealing to the two sides
to undertake various mesures to alleviate the
suffering among war victims.


In view of the strong criticism that has been
levelled at the Biafran leadership for its
intrasigence, and the high praise heaped o General
Gowon and his Government for humanitarian
concern and magnanimity, it should be stressed
that in Niamey Gowon rejected the O.A.U
proposals for a partial truce and international
policing of relief routes, while Ojukwu was
prepared to accept both these proposals. When
Ojukwu returned to Biafra, he gave a press
conference at which he was asked whether his
invitation to the OAU had meant any form of
recognition of him. For once Ojukwu was cautious
in his reply: 'Let's put it this way. My presence in
Niamey for once represents the O.A.U's acceptance
that there are two sides to a conflict.' He would not
reveal any further details about the forthcoming
Addis Ababa peace talk, but said, 'I find myself in
a rather simillar situation as after Aburi.' He did
not want to say anything in case Lagos started
'interpreting it, and go back to square
one..." (302-303)


The foregoing provides the clear context of the
situation, that it was not Ojukwu, but Gowon who
rejected the proposals by which Ojukwu and the
Biafran leadership was prepared to abide.The
context is clearly established and makes nonsense
of Golsdstein's ground for resignation.

While the Biafran government was prepared to act
without precondition, the Nigerian authorities
persistenly insisted on Biafran surrender. It was a
deliberate and determined argument made to make
certain that the only solution was by a military
solution because Lagos knew that the basic
grounds on which it made its offer of relief was
conditional and unconscionable.

It was to disavow
the very basic reason why Biafra defended itself in
the first place: its sovereignty as a means to the
safety, security and dignity of its population. Now,
were the Gowon administration acting in good
faith, that would be a differet matter. What
guaratees could Biafrans have, had Ojukwu
surrendered as a condition for food? None.
Here is the evidence narrated by John Stremlau in
his The International Politics of the Nigerian Civil
War how Gowon's cable upturned the agreements
reached in May 1968 in kampala between Eni
Njoku and Enahoro in which Eni Njoku had in fact
"conceded the evntuality of one-Nigeria."

As
Stremalau notes, "Whereas Enahoro had left
acceptance of the twelve-state structure implicit
in his propsals, Gowon insisted that before any
agreement was reached the rebels must explictly
embrace the twelve states. In addition, Gowon
stipulated that there would be no question of an
interim commission for the rebel-held areas, there
would be no recruitment and formation of Ibo
units into the federal armed forces, and no
elements of the rebel troops or police would be
allowed to retain their arms. Gowon's instruction,
which did not reach Kampala until shortly after
Enahoro had made his presentation, clearly
reflected the views of the more hawkish elements
in the federal government" (172-173).


To put these in summary:
(a) Ojukwu did not reject relief, he wanted the
security and guarantee of safety for Biafrans. He
was in fact willing to accept the O.A.U's proposals

(b) Gowon and the Lagos administration
manipulated international propaganda, as testified
in the versions of the broadcasts of the Niamey
agreement to further its own goals of the
liquidation of Biafra

(c) The federal government was not, in spite of all
the efforts made by the Biafrans willing to
negotiate peace, they were hell-bent on
"surrender" as the only condition for the survival
of the Biafran population.

If anybody must bear responsbility, it must be
those who kept using the talks to elongate the
suffering of the civilian population, and clearly this
are the 'hawks" who placed the only condition for
peace on Biafra's surrender and liquidation. And
there, you have it.

Stop trying to reason with these people. Deep down, they know the truth — that's why they keep changing their narrative. From naming the First 1966 Coup an 'Igbo coup' to minimalising how many Igbos were killed in the war. From gloating about their ancestors starving Igbos to death to outright denying it and blaming Ojukwu.

Very soon, once more information comes to light, we will see them saying that Igbos were the ones who forced Gowon to rescind the Aburi Accord . Shame on them.

gidgiddy:

Dr Aluko completely destroyed Goldsteins letter in 2012, it was posted here in the previous thread about this

https://www.nairaland.com/3854388/biafra-war-nigeria-starvation-land

Below is what Dr Aluko said


Dr. Aluko:
It is obfuscation at its most blatant to read
Goldstein letter outside of the rationale for action
taken by Ojukwu and the Biafran leadership.
I'll attempt to answer your earlier questions posed
to me alonsgide this, because they are related.
- The first question was why Ojukwu did not, given
that Biafra had shrunk dramatically, not surrender
to save starving Biafrans.


- The second is, to link it to the substance of
Goldstein's letter, why Ojukwu insisted on ceasefire
and the airlift of relief to Biafrans as the only
grounds or conditions for accepting relief.
First, Ojukwu knew that an internationally observed
ceasefire was the only guarantee for the security
and safety of the Biafran. Second, the atrocities
recorded wherever the federal forces liberated lent
credence to that demand. In fact, it made it
imperative, particularly because the Lagos regime
was not prepared to negotiate in true faith for the
amicable end of the conflict.


The war strategy of the Gowon administration was
hell-bent on Biafra's complete surrender without
guarantees. No political and military leader will
agree to that kind of suicide. I'll return to this
point. But let me quote from Susan Cronje's quite
illuminating book, The World and Nigeria: The
Diplomatic History of the Biafran war 1967-1970
( I'd also recommend that you read the other,
Biafra: Britain's Shame). Cronje writes this about
the meeting in Niamey referenced by Goldstein:
"The Nigerian delegation was led by Chief
Awolowo, but General Gowon arrived in Niamey on
16 July and addressed the meeting as an
'observer.'

The main theme of his speech was a
warning that if the 'rebels persist in their
contemptuous attitude to the conference table the
federal government will have no choice but to take
over the remaining rebel-held areas...In military
terms the rebellion is virtually suppressed already.'
But the atmosphere had suibtly changed. hamani
diori had altrady suggested that the committee's
consultative role should be changed to a mediatory
one, and after Gowon's address the committee
went into closed session. Eventually it was
announced that that Ojukwu had been asked to
attend, and Gowon who had already returned to
Lagos flew back to Niamey the following day,
cancelling all engagements. His presence in
Niamey was required not for a meeting with
Ojukwu but to reply to a truce proposal put forward
among others by General Ankrah. This called for a
ten-mile wide demilitarized zone patrolled by
neutral troops to allow relief supplies to pass to
Biafran refugees. According to one account of the
debate, Gowon is said to have turned to General
Ankrah, saying, 'You are a military man: you know
what it is with commanders.'

The suggestion that
he might be unable to restrain his army was
reinforced when he warned the committee that if it
did not see things his way they would have to have
'a Nigeria without me.' According to a Niamey
radio report the following day, General Gowon
rejected the resolution put to him by the O.A.U.
committee; the main points of this resolution were
the establishment of a demilitarized zone and 'an
international force which would include neutral
observers acceptable to both sides.' Ghana and
Cameroun, the broadcast said, had offered
shipping facilities for moving relief supplies.
Ojukwu arrived in Niamey on 19 July in President
Houphet-Boigny's private jet.

The Biafran
delegation, when it was fully assembled, included
Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, the former Nigerian president,
Dr. Okpara, former Eastern Nigerian premier, Sir
Louis Mbanefo, Dr. Eni Njoku and several other
notables; Lagos was not far off in suggesting that
the 'entire rebel leadership' had assembled in
Niger. At the end of the meeting between Ojukwu
and the consltative committee - Gowon had
returned to Lagos two days previously - a
communique was issued. Two versions appear to
be in existence; the one broadcast by Niamey radio
read:

(1) the Nigerian Federal Military Government
and Colonel Ojukwu have agreed to meet
immediately in Niamey under the chairmanship of
President Diori Hamani in order to begin
preliminary talks on a speedy resumption of
Nigerian peace negotiations;

(2) the Nigerian
Federal Military Government and Colonel Ojukwu
have agreed to resume as soon as possible peace
negotiations in Addis Ababa under the auspices of
the O.A.U Consultative Committee on Nigeria.' The
version as broadcast by Lagos - and which does
not pretend to be a verbatim report - said that the
committee had called on both parties to resume
peace talks as soon as possible, '... with the
objecvtive of preserving Nigeria's territiorial
integrity and guaranteeing the security of all its
inhabitants.' The committee said, according to this
broadcast, that 'it will be in contact with the federal
military government, and Ojukwu or his
representativs may at any time contact any
member government of the committee.' The Lagos
version went on to cite two further point of which
ther was no mention in the Niamey version, both
dealing with relief, and appealing to the two sides
to undertake various mesures to alleviate the
suffering among war victims.


In view of the strong criticism that has been
levelled at the Biafran leadership for its
intrasigence, and the high praise heaped o General
Gowon and his Government for humanitarian
concern and magnanimity, it should be stressed
that in Niamey Gowon rejected the O.A.U
proposals for a partial truce and international
policing of relief routes, while Ojukwu was
prepared to accept both these proposals. When
Ojukwu returned to Biafra, he gave a press
conference at which he was asked whether his
invitation to the OAU had meant any form of
recognition of him. For once Ojukwu was cautious
in his reply: 'Let's put it this way. My presence in
Niamey for once represents the O.A.U's acceptance
that there are two sides to a conflict.' He would not
reveal any further details about the forthcoming
Addis Ababa peace talk, but said, 'I find myself in
a rather simillar situation as after Aburi.' He did
not want to say anything in case Lagos started
'interpreting it, and go back to square
one..." (302-303)


The foregoing provides the clear context of the
situation, that it was not Ojukwu, but Gowon who
rejected the proposals by which Ojukwu and the
Biafran leadership was prepared to abide.The
context is clearly established and makes nonsense
of Golsdstein's ground for resignation.

While the Biafran government was prepared to act
without precondition, the Nigerian authorities
persistenly insisted on Biafran surrender. It was a
deliberate and determined argument made to make
certain that the only solution was by a military
solution because Lagos knew that the basic
grounds on which it made its offer of relief was
conditional and unconscionable.

It was to disavow
the very basic reason why Biafra defended itself in
the first place: its sovereignty as a means to the
safety, security and dignity of its population. Now,
were the Gowon administration acting in good
faith, that would be a differet matter. What
guaratees could Biafrans have, had Ojukwu
surrendered as a condition for food? None.
Here is the evidence narrated by John Stremlau in
his The International Politics of the Nigerian Civil
War how Gowon's cable upturned the agreements
reached in May 1968 in kampala between Eni
Njoku and Enahoro in which Eni Njoku had in fact
"conceded the evntuality of one-Nigeria."

As
Stremalau notes, "Whereas Enahoro had left
acceptance of the twelve-state structure implicit
in his propsals, Gowon insisted that before any
agreement was reached the rebels must explictly
embrace the twelve states. In addition, Gowon
stipulated that there would be no question of an
interim commission for the rebel-held areas, there
would be no recruitment and formation of Ibo
units into the federal armed forces, and no
elements of the rebel troops or police would be
allowed to retain their arms. Gowon's instruction,
which did not reach Kampala until shortly after
Enahoro had made his presentation, clearly
reflected the views of the more hawkish elements
in the federal government" (172-173).


To put these in summary:
(a) Ojukwu did not reject relief, he wanted the
security and guarantee of safety for Biafrans. He
was in fact willing to accept the O.A.U's proposals

(b) Gowon and the Lagos administration
manipulated international propaganda, as testified
in the versions of the broadcasts of the Niamey
agreement to further its own goals of the
liquidation of Biafra

(c) The federal government was not, in spite of all
the efforts made by the Biafrans willing to
negotiate peace, they were hell-bent on
"surrender" as the only condition for the survival
of the Biafran population.

If anybody must bear responsbility, it must be
those who kept using the talks to elongate the
suffering of the civilian population, and clearly this
are the 'hawks" who placed the only condition for
peace on Biafra's surrender and liquidation. And
there, you have it.

This further confirms it that Ojukwu actually traded relief for the dying children for some war negotiations. It's sad.

naijapips04:


Your fore fathers killed thousands of Nigerian men , women and children. Ojukwu allowed those children to start.

I'm not here to reason with you as I believe that, deep down, you already know the truth.

If your ancestors/tribesmen were not responsible for those children starvation then may you all know peace for generations.

If they were responsible for it then may you and your family suffer what those Biafran children suffered seven-fold. Iseeeee!

Ngozi123:


I'm not here to reason with you as I believe that, deep down, you already know the truth.

If your ancestors/tribesmen were not responsible for those children starvation then may you all know peace for generations.

If they were responsible for it then may you and your family suffer what those Biafran children suffered seven-fold. Iseeeee!

If your ancestors murdered thousands of Nigerian children, may you not know peace in this world and in worlds to come.

naijapips04:


If your ancestors murdered thousands of Nigerian children, may you not know peace in this world and in worlds to come.

Yeah... This doesn't affect me as my ancestors didn't fight in the war and so couldn't have done what you claim.

Btw, thanks for indrectly admitting that your people were responsible for those Igbo children's starvation.

Ngozi123:


A simple Google search would answer that for you.

You're a wicked person if you know about the pogroms of 1966, the Nigerian government's failure to deal with the perpetrators and Ojukwu's subsequent declaration of independence, and you still want to blame Igbos.
Remember that what goes around comes around. God is watching.

How could you be this daft?.. What proof have you this random pic was any part of iboland?. Could have been anywhere in Africa.
I need me a documented images with reference to locations in any part of iboland where infrastructures were burned down.
Show me images from any documents, materials, books on the civil war that had captured images of bombed institutions or homes, etc, particularly, pro biafran books that must have had a vivid collage of those images.
There was no doubting the fact that Ojukwu pushed out several hundred images of starved children and women in the media but a corresponding images of bombed structures was missing from Ojukwu's personal archives.
And while at it, ensure you add a couple of pictures showing starved biafran soldiers during the war. We needed to be sure if the starvation plague went all round from the civilian to the military. It'd be inexplicably if soldiers were well fed while civilians died of kwashiorkor.
All images be attached. Thanks.

Ngozi123:


Yeah... This doesn't affect me as my ancestors didn't fight in the war and so couldn't have done what you claim.

Btw, thanks for indrectly admitting that your people were responsible for those Igbo children's starvation.

Thanks for indirectly accepting that your ancestors murdered thousands of Nigerian children

naijapips04:
Ojukwu starved Biafra children to score a cheap point during the war. Have you asked your self why Ojukwu soldiers were all well feed while the children starved to death? Ojukwu did what he thought would help him win a war he started. This is on him not the Queen of England.

senseless talk. you think you can deceive your elders about history of what happened in their life time.

you toddler, go on eulogize you subjugating and plundering kleptomaniac queen

mbos:


senseless talk. you think you can deceive your elders about history of what happened in their life time.

you toddler, go on eulogize you subjugating and plundering kleptomaniac queen

The people present at the time wrote a letter that clearly spelt out what happened.

naijapips04:


Thanks for indirectly accepting that your ancestors murdered thousands of Nigerian children

You did read the first part of my post, right?