₦airaland Forum

centje: Love garden,unec

Wonder why its called love garden? Lol...just like the name implies,alot of love affairs happen here. [size=18pt]Students even go to the extent of f*uking here,in the night tho'[/size]

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

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

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

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

1. Biafra went to war without securing arms and food

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Katsumoto: Hello Deep Sight,

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

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

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

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

Deep Sight: Hello Katsumoto,

- STARVATION POLICY

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

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

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

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

The full transcript of the interview is available here -

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

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

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

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

obicentlis: As aN Igbo,i doubt that Will. How can you Will all you ve to ya wife,na wa o,

T9ksy: That's a typical ibotic logic......anyone can make any claim (depending on how much cheap drugs he/she has been experiementing with,

extantly) knowing fully well that he/she does not have to provide or indicate why or how he/she came by such supposition rather, the burden is on the other

party to provide proof that the asserter was fallacious. Typical example is "NCNC won the 1951 regoinal election in western nigeria" but ibos don't seem to

appreciate that the rest of us (critically lacking in ibotic reasoning) will love to see their "election results" which they predicate their indictment on.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....IBOISM at its finest!!!

Odenigbo Aroli: So ?? And why didn't they sweep the road the day you took the pictures ?? Road sweeping governor!