₦airaland Forum

crazysaint:
Lol... consolation story.

RE: NigerianID | Re:Robert S. Goldstein (Biafra Public Relations Rep in the USA) - Letter of Resignation to Odumegwu Ojukwu (1968) 


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.

Obi Nwakanma

6. Biafra has so far blocked both daytime flights into their one working airstrip, and various proposals for a land corridor, ostensibly for military reasons. The Federals reject air drops as potential gun running, and a river corridor as a military disadvantage.PA/HO Department of State EO 12958 as ammended April 21 2005 (Declassified) https://2001-2009.state.gov/documents/organization/54578.pdf

bilms:
[s]Historical Excursion: How Ojukwu starved thousands of Biafran children to death

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.[/s]
https://www.pmnewsnigeria.com/2017/06/01/historical-excursion-ojukwu-starved-thousands-biafran-children-death/?utm_source=&utm_medium=twitter

kingzizzy:
I have noticed that some people keep opening this thread about Ojukwu starving his own people. More than 4 of them have been opened since yesterday. They should read this