₦airaland Forum

Sam_Ikenna: Nwannem, Chukwu gozie gi. Ka ekeresimesi nka, na afor ohuru nkea na abia wetara anyi udo na oga n'iru.

Ami o! udo diri gi. Ekpere mu n'isi gi bu ndu na oganihu na afo ofuu na abia.

I'm watching from the sideline how you are dismantling Negro_nts argument. You are blowing him to smithereens. . . Almost giving him Ndu-chucks treatment.

Sam_Ikenna: Dudu's unhealthy obsession with Igbo, I believe, is now at a fatal stage. I expect to hear how you and your "king makers" have improved the lives of "real Nigerians minus Igbos" during the fourty years of your much touted "Igbo political wilderness." And while you're at it, please do tell us how you intend to create wealth and lift the masses out of poverty post 2015, because its glaring GEJ's tenure is and will not work for you neither will Igbo man's shot at the highest position reset your tensed pulse.

I'm sick of hearing Igbo wont lead, they're arrogant, they killed us, they stole this, they stole that, we hate them, they're evil, and blah blah blah yet its not like Nigeria has been out of the woods since you won your "no victor no vanquished BS."

My point - Show us the right way of get the hell out of my way. Nigeria deserves better and if you haven't provided it all these fourty years of unbroken and unfettered access to power and oil resources then you should either keep quiet or, at the very least, remove yourself from our midst. Your daily sensational front-page piece on Nairaland thats usually riddled with fatal obsession with Igbo doesn't provide leadership or answers to problems - Its high time you recognized that.

Nwanna Sam, glad to have you back!
Compliments of the season.

Okija_juju: Nwannem, I shall be Live in Nnewi Tomorrow and Nri on Saturday, send me your location and I will DHL you 50Litres free of charge...

Nwannem, let me write my will first before accepting your generous gift.

Okija_juju: These Yoruba people resoning dey tire person...

Some of them have even started talking about Lagos Laws and Federal laws as if to say Lagos State laws superceeds Federal laws..


Anyways, here is the simple summary of the issue;

1. Is the sale/ownership of firecrackers illegal in Nigeria (under Federal Laws) or even in Lagos (Under State Laws)?!

NO.

2. Was the fire cracker shop illegally located as stipulated in any Federal Law or Lagos State Law?!

NO.

3. Did the shop violate any known federal or Lagos state laws with regards safety or health harzard?!

NO..

4. So on what basis are these Yoruba people calling for the prosecution of the shop owner?!

Absolutely Nothing but cheap Alomo and Amala induced sentiments..




_{Case closed...}


NEXT CASE!!!!!!!!!!

Eccentric Okija juju. . .
Bia nwokem, I will like to sip a little of your Nri palmwine.

Jarus: Now you are taking your modship campaign too far.

Was the 2009 poll officially recognized? The then mod did a shabby exercise and Nairaland senior management rightly overruled it. That was why we came up with ban rule and quality posts rule to prevent the likes of Becomrich from emerging. So how can you use 2009 exercise as a reference.

And this year, can you name another poster that added more value to this section than Katz? This was someone whose performance at the October debate was well applauded and also did well as moderator of November dialogue. Yes, he also engaged in tribal fights, but tell me who among the top posters didnt, including your candidate, your tribesman.


The sectional award has come to stay. There is nothing anybody can do about it. Not even your becoming a moderator of this section,which you can't be anyway, can stop it. The sectional award event has become an institution, and beyond a moderator's prerogative. It has come to stay.

How did Katsumoto add value to the debate here? By the way, what's your definition of value? I think that you are a closet tribalist. The autocratic manner in which you go about performing your mod job is unbecoming. You are acting as if you are too big an asset for Seun to dispose.
You are holding Seun to ransom by resigning or threatening him with resignation. I think that it will be best for Seun to offload you. You are steadily becoming a liability to him with your opinion, positions, actions and inactions.
You keep drumming that you don't get paid as a moderator; why not quit? In my opinion, you should be paying Seun for launching you to prominence; Giving you a cheap publicity. Otherwise you will remain an obscure article writer.

The fact that you included Prof. Achebe in your hall of shame ahead of Osokogu killers, Otedola, Farouk, Boko haram, Aluu 4, Ifeanyi Uba, etc says much of your bigotry. Yet, you could not explain why Achebe's name should be on that list. I used to respect you, but I think that nairaland has done some damage to your view of events.

The Governor reflected that the people
must undertake a lot of soul searching
and reflections on the choices they
make as a people, asking; “the way we
do business, does it benefit all of us or
do we do business without
consideration for other people’s safety
as long as I make money?, I don’t care
if people die, I don’t care if properties
are burnt”.

With all due respect, the above comment is trash. No true capitalist puts the consideration of people's safety above his profit margin. That is why the government should be there to enact and enforce laws which protects the masses. Capitalists like Otedola, Ifeanyi Uba, Dangote, Shell, ExxonMobil etc have directly or indirectly sent people to their grave because of the way in which they conducts their business. Appealing to capitalists to conduct their business in a way in which it benefits everyone is naive. That statement is inimical to the fundamental creed of capitalism; which is greed. He should direct the comment at the government(which he is a part of) for failing to protect the masses.

The comment should also be directed at the politician(Fashola inclusive) for embezzling the money meant for the masses; For failing to equip our hospitals; For failing to upgrade our infrastructures; etc. The way they runs the government does not benefit all of us too

Standing5: How can you tell me what i know and what i don't! Did high rainfall cause the flood disaster experienced in Nigeria or Opening of a dam outside Nigeria? You still need alot of upgrading to do bro . . .

Opening of a dam outside Nigeria can only be partly blamed for flooding. How can you explain flooding of those years when the dam in Cameroon was still intact. No need to spin it with your warped logic. Give credit to whom it's due.

afam4eva: I'm waiting too oo...I just hope Chukwuma Soludo will contest.

Prof. Chukwuma Soludo is a formidable candidate and a man with an impeccable resume. He has a good chance of winning the poll come 2014. But I don't see PDP giving him their guber ticket with the likes of Uba family controlling their affairs in Anambra. Having flopped in the last gubernatorial election. Moreover, his open embrace of Atiku during PDP presidential primaries did no endear him to the presidency. I'm tilting towards Dr. Chris Ngige. He has done it before; He can still do it again.

Standing5: How does flooding equals high rainfall? if not for the fact that you have no clue about what you are trying to talk. Did flooding contribute to your mental state you just displayed here on Nl?

You don't even know that high rainfall is a trigger factor for flooding. Do you think that flooding during rainy season occurs in isolation? I think I should leave you to wallow in your ignorance and ldiocy.

2014! I can't wait. Peter Obi must go!

Standing5: He deserves commendation for Resigning rather than go ahead to play Abuja politics as is widespread in the system but then i think he has taken too much credit for the rise in power output which was a result of high rainfall this year.

What an ldiotic comment! NL has acquired a name as the home of armchair analysts. It is on record that Prof. Barth Nnaji resigned many weeks before the height of the flooding. It is also on record that power output dropped within days of Prof. Barth Nnaji's resignation. There has been cases of flooding in the past when power output failed to rise. His success was as a result of sound energy policies he formulated. His successor is simply incompetent. Barth promised us that there would be an incremental rise in power output until we hit 6000 megawatts sometimes next year. True to his word we were steadily marching to that level until Nigerian factor sets in. Go and tell people in the neighbourhood whom their power situation improved that Barth is overrated. The problem with Nigerians is that we don't encourage the good/competent ones in our midst. Nigeria is programmed in a way to elevate incompetent/mediocres to the top.

oyb: simply, put, whatever Prof Nnaji's contributions may have been, he was pushed out for corruption. in a country like China, he would probably have been executed. In nigeria we give our govt crooks soft landing

anyway to the real topic - giving this man an award is a tacit acceptance and celebration of corruption

it is also an endorsement of the practice by our govt officials who have blind trust or direct ownership in so called Private buyovers of goverment holdings.

Your position would have made much sense if Prof. Barth Nnaji was duly indicted of corruption by any court of law in Nigeria. As far as I know he is innocent until proven guilty. Provided that he is a free man with no legally proven corruption charges, he deserves all the accolades bestowed on him. Hack writers can write anything to put a dent on otherwise impeccable character of any public office holder. It does not make the charges true. I don't care if Prof. Barth gets nominated for any inconsequential award on nairaland. I only want to be on the path of fairness. You must prove to us that Prof. is indeed corrupt by citing any of his indictment of corruption charges. Until then, you are simply making noise.

demmy: "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.
No spin here. Just the fact.

The Nigerian government blockaded Biafra from importing weapons. Awolowo masterminded no starvation policy. Awolowo was not a Biafran. He was not the leader of Biafra. He was not the Biafran minister of agriculture. He was not responsible for Biafrans in any way shape or form. Biafra was supposedly a sovereign country with supposedly big minds who supposedly knew what it take to establish a sovereign and viable nation. If the blockade was causing starvation it should have been obvious to these great minds, Achebe included that maybe, just maybe Biafra was a pipe dream and should have led the people back to the safety of the Nigerian federation. What did the Biafran leaders do instead? They decided on a stalemate and watched as people they were supposed to be leading to freedom starved to death. Wrong choice.

That is the truth. You know it.

seanet02: Deliberate starvation policy?
This gotta be a joke.
You should have stored enough food. You cant eat your cake and have it. You starved yourself. You dont go to war without having a guaranteed source of food or enough in your reserve.
You starved yourself.

demmy: Biafra was landlocked. A general should know how untenable this is. If you're blaming Awolowo for starvation because of the blockade, then you're basically saying Nigeria was responsible for feeding Biafra.

The "deliberate starvation policy" is from your own imagination.

I don't want to go into back-and-forth debate with you guys on the topic of starvation policy. Awo himself admitted to it in his interview, but u choose to ignore that part. You can use any warped logic which suits you to support you argument. No nation has enough food to sustain them in a war. So telling me that Biafra should have stored enough food to sustain them in the war is ludicrous. You may go through our earlier debate with Katsumoto on the starvation policy. I don't like mindless repetition.

seanet02: 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.

Did Ojukwu ask Nigeria to feed Biafra? Hope you can distinguish between deliberate starvation policy and appeal for food aid?

teekayo: @ ACM...thanks... I'm in lagos...d only place I know of is LUTH... But my concern is if there would be a crowd and the availablility of d PEP at the place. That's why I'd prefer somewhere smaller and more direct (like d PEP centre u talked about)...know any or anyone I can meet in lagos tomorrow?...thanks once again

Visit LUTH first. There may be many PEPFAR center scattered in Lagos. Just ask

teekayo: @ACM...geez...thanks. Pls can you help me with an address/ phone no.... I know none for now. I hope to take my partner along for the test.

I'm in Enugu. There is a PEPFAR center in UNTH, Enugu

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.".

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.

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.

teekayo: Pls I need a PEP for a HIV exposure risk...it was yesterday (sat)...I think I need it latest tomorrow...PLS how and where can I get one fast... I'm in lagos. Thank you

Visit PEPFAR clinic in your centre OR any ARV center near you. I almost had needle prick when I was setting up IV line on my RVD pxt 2 days ago. Her vein was colapsed and very difficult to access. What saved me was that I double-gloved as well as my dry and rough skin. However, I took no chance sha. I immediately degloved and rinsed my hand vigourously with soap and clean water. I inspected the site and there was no point of needle prick. I Could not express any blood from the suspected site too. Then I put on another glove. Finished setting up the line and reported to PEP center in where I work. After thorough assessment, I told that there was no evidence of exposure. I was really scared!

Queendo: Greatest joke of d century

How?

jyke_ggt: Thanx for d wonderful advice u ve been offering. Ps can u interprete this result!
WBC 8.9 X 10 9/L
Lymph# 3.4 X 10 9/L
Mid# 1.0 X 10 9/L H
Gran# 4.5 X 10 9/L
Lymph% 38.7%
Mid% 11.0% H
Gran% 50.3%

HGB 10.2 g/dL L
RBC 3.92 X 10 12/L
HCT 30.9% L
MCV 79.0 fL. L
MCH 26.0 pg. L
MCHC 33.0 g/dL
RDW-CV 15.1% H
RDW-SD 46.5 fL

PLT 172 X 10 9/L
MPV 8.6 fL
PDW 16.2
PCT 0.147%

Pls can you put their normal range by their side. I can only memorize the normal range of few of them.

@Others
kindly accept my apology for the delay in my response. I will attend to everyone inquiry tonight.

I consider many personal accounts here on experiences in Benue state invented. There is high rate of HIV patients in Benue compared to their population. This could be attributed to high rate of unsafe sexual practices OR the presence of a very virulent strain of HIV in their population.
Lagos population is 4x bigger than that of Benue. There are more HIV patients in Lagos state than anywhere in Nigeria compared to their population size. Its ludicrous for someone in Lagos to demonize or stigmatize Benue indigenes when they are Nigeria's repository of the infection.
But come to think of it. This statistics will not make any sense to HIV patient in Ekiti state since he/she is infected. The effort should be geared on promoting safe sex. Not on pulling out a useless statistics.

Why are NL moderators stinking bigots. What is Professor Achebe doing in the list of hall of shame? Guess the intention is to spite Ndigbo. This forum is quickly turning to Yoruba forum. Yorubas wont expect other tribes to respect them when they treats them with derision. Seriously, you guys should learn how to handle other tribes sensitivities. I see no explanation for Achebe making it to that list.

ak47mann: your new name should be the weeping master

I feel bad to miss this show

ohemmanu: you are not lying,the first day that i reported to my PPA in idada benue with my corper mate,after the discussions with the principal we were going and to my utmost suprise the principal pointing to one of the teachers told my friend 'this is yours' and also showed me another gal and said u can have her.i was shocked and trying to recover when the gal said 'sir,this one small for me'.That was when i knew that i have arrived benue.This is real o

Daddy you can lie o

cecegorz: Sorry guys. I couldn't get Pix from the Road block.
It was Jam packed n star studded.
Uche Ogbuagu
I go die
Chudy K
Nigga Raw
Flavour - I left after his performance arnd 3am.
Others that were still backstage: Tuface, Terry G, Timaya, Duncan Mighty, Davido!
I wonder what time they all finished. One thing I must say about the event management: top class!
The security was tight, main venue centre was well barricaded from the teeming crowd with a perimeter.

almost got pin prick yesterday transfusing a HIV patient

GARRI (x7):
Thank God you agree he lied.... His lies have been thrashed severally on this forum. Find below one of the threads..

Happy viewing..
https://www.nairaland.com/1066355/achebe-biafra-memoir-stirs-controversy/1

I amazed by the way people swallow the unverified accounts/junks typed here as fact.

[size=18pt]*clears throat*[/size]