₦airaland Forum

[b]He ended by saying he hoped Britain could supply armoured cars since they ‘have proved of especial value in the type of fighting that is going on in Nigeria and the FMG are most impressed with the Saladins and Ferrets’ previously supplied by Britain.
As a result Britain supplied six Saladin armoured personnel carriers (APCs), 30 Saracen APCs along with 2,000 machine guns for them, anti-tank guns and 9 million rounds of ammunition. Denis Healey, the Defence Secretary, wrote that he hoped these supplies will encourage the Nigerians ‘to look to the United Kingdom for their future purchases of defence equipment’. By the end of the year Britain had also approved the export of 1,050 bayonets, 700 grenades, 1,950 rifles with grenade launchers, 15,000 lbs of explosives and two helicopters.

In the first half of the following year, 1968, Britain approved the export of 15 million rounds of ammunition, 21,000 mortar bombs, 42,500 Howtizer rounds, 12 Oerlikon guns, 3 Bofors guns, 500 submachine guns, 12 Saladins with guns and spare parts, 30 Saracens and spare parts, 800 bayonets, 4,000 rifles and two other helicopters. At the same time Wilson was constantly reassuring Gowon of British support for a united Nigeria, saying in April 1968 that ‘I think we can fairly claim that we have not wavered in this support throughout the civil war’.

These massive arms exports were being secretly supplied – indeed, massively stepped up – at a time when one could read about the actions of the recipients in the newspapers. After the Biafran withdrawal from the mid-west in September 1967 a series of massacres started against Ibo residents. The New York Times reported that over 5,000 had been killed in various towns of the mid west. About 1,000 Ibos were killed in Benin city by local people with the acquiescence of the federal forces, the New York Review noted in December 1967. Around 700 Ibo males were lined up and shot in the town of Asaba, the Observer reported in January 1968. According to eyewitnesses the Nigerian commander ordered the execution of every Ibo male over the age of ten.

Nigerian officials informed the British government that the arms were ‘important to them, but not vital’. More important than the actual arms ‘was the policy of the British government in supporting the FMG’.

This support was now taking place amid public and parliamentary pressure for a halt to British arms to Lagos, with 70 Labour MPs, for example, filing a motion for such an embargo in May 1968. Yet the real extent of arms supplied by Britain was concealed from the public.

Throughout 1967 and 1968, Ministers had been telling parliament that Britain was essentially neutral in the conflict in that it was not interfering in the internal affairs of Nigeria but simply continuing to supply arms to Nigeria on the same basis as before the war. As the declassified files, referred to above, show, this was simply a lie. For example, Wilson told the House on 16 May 1968 that: ’We have continued the supply… of arms by private manufacturers in this country exactly on the basis that it has been in the past, but there has been no special provision for the needs of the war’.

One British file at this time – mid-1968 – refers to deaths of between 70,000-100,000 by now as ‘realistic’. The Red Cross was estimating around 600,000 refugees in Biafra alone and was trying to arrange desperately needed supplies to meet needs, estimated at around 30 tons a day.

Humanitarian suffering, especially starvation, was severe as a result of the FMG’s blockade of Biafra. Pictures of starving and malnourished children went around the world. The FMG was widely seen as indulging in atrocities and attacks against civilians, including apparently indiscriminate air strikes, in an increasingly brutal war in which civilians were the chief victims.

The files show that Wilson told Gowon on several occasions in private letters that he had successfully fended off public and parliamentary criticism in Britain, in order to continue to support the FMG – clearly showing where the government’s priorities and sympathies lay. As in Vietnam at the same time, Wilson was not going to be deflected by mere public opposition from backing ongoing aggression by key allies, whatever the level of atrocities and casualties.

With federal forces in control by mid-year of Port Harcourt, the most important southern coastal city, British officials noted that ‘having gone this far in supporting the FMG, it would be a pity to throw away the credit we have built up with them just when they seem to have the upper hand’. Britain could not halt the supply of arms since ‘apart from other considerations, such an outcome would seriously put at risk about £200m of British investments in non-Biafra Nigeria’, George Thomson explained to Harold Wilson.

It was also at this point that British officials sought to counter widespread opposition to the Nigerian government by conniving with it to improve the ‘presentation’ of its policies – another example of Britain’s past ‘information operations’ described in earlier chapters. Britain urged the FMG to convince the outside world that it was not engaged in genocide or a policy of massacre and to make public statements on the need for a ceasefire and humanitarian access to Biafra.

High Commissioner Hunt suggested to Gowon that the federal air force be used for ‘psychological warfare’ and to drop leaflets over the Ibo towns which would help the FMG score a ‘propaganda point’. Officials noted that their support for the FMG was under attack and that ‘our ability to sustain it… depends very much on implementing enlightened and humane federal policies and securing public recognition for them’. What was needed was ‘good and well-presented Nigerian policies which permit that support to continue’. Wilson therefore urged a senior Nigerian government official, Chief Enahoro, ‘to make a greater effort to ensure that their case did not go by default’.

The files indicate that these ‘presentational’ issues were much more important to British officials than any actual suffering of the Biafrans themselves. London never did anything significant to press the FMG. British officials ruled out threatening to cut off, or reduce, arms exports to force the FMG to change policies. The issue that most concerned the government at the time was that it would be forced to withdraw or reduce its support for Gowon in the face of public pressure. This, therefore, had to be countered, and the FMG needed to make greater efforts.

By mid-1968 British officials had still had no contacts with Ojukwu and other Biafran leaders; offers from the latter had been refused. So supportive was Wilson of the FMG that he even asked the Nigerians in advance whether they would have ‘any difficulties’ if a British official met a Biafran representative. Chief Enahoro replied that this would be acceptable provided the contacts were ‘strictly private and had no formal character’.

In early August FMG forces had retaken the whole of the southeastern and Rivers states and the easterners were now confined to a small enclave, blockaded from the outside world. Commonwealth Minister Lord Shepherd minuted Harold Wilson saying, that 14 months since Biafran secession: ‘Our support for the FMG finds us in the position in which we are on comparatively good terms with the side which is in an overwhelmingly advantageous position… It is important, therefore, that we should not be manoeuvred by pressure of opinion inspired by Ojukwu’s publicity, into abandoning at this late stage all the advantages which our policy so far seemed likely to bring us’. The same month, the Red Cross estimated 2-3 million people ‘in dire need’ and a similar number were facing shortages of food and medical aid.

Wilson did not succomb to public pressure. The following month he told Gowon that: ‘The British government for their part have steadfastly maintained their policy of support for Federal Nigeria and have resisted all suggestions in parliament and in the press for a change in that policy, particularly in regard to arms supplies’. The Foreign Office argued that ‘the whole of our investments in Nigeria and particularly our oil interests in the south east and the mid-west will be at risk if we change our policy of support for the federal government’.

In November, Lord Brockway and his committee for peace in Nigeria met Wilson and urged him to halt arms sales and to press for a ceasefire, estimating that there could be two million deaths from starvation and disease by the end of the year. Wilson not only rebuffed this plea; the files reveal that two days later he agreed to supply Nigeria with aircraft for the first time in a covert deal.

The Nigerians had been pressing Britain to supply several jet aircraft, specifically to attack the runways used by Biafran forces (and which also needed to be used to deliver humanitarian aid). Wilson said that Britain could not supply these directly but there were such aircraft in South Yemen and Sudan previously supplied by Britain. The Nigerians, he said, should procure the aircraft from them which ‘would not directly involve the British government’. The company to deal with in those two countries was Airwork Limited, which was later to be again used by the British government to conceal its involvement in its covert dirty war in Yemen. The British government also agreed to put the Nigerians in touch with ‘suitable pilots’.

British arms supplies were stepped up again in November. Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart said the Nigerians could have 5 million more rounds of ammunition, 40,000 more mortar bombs and 2,000 rifles. ‘You may tell Gowon’, Stewart instructed High Commissioner Hunt in Lagos, ‘that we are certainly ready to consider a further application’ to supply similar arms in the future as well. He concluded: ‘if there is anything else for ground warfare which you… think they need and which would help speed up the end of the fighting, please let us know and we will consider urgently whether we can supply it’.

Other supplies agreed in November following meetings with the Nigerians included six Saladins and 20,000 rounds of ammunition for them, and stepped up monthly supplies of ammunition, amounting to a total of 15 million rounds additional to those already agreed. It was recognised by the Defence Minister that ‘the scale of the UK supply of small arms ammunition to Nigeria in recent months has been and will continue to be on a vast scale’. The recent deal meant that Britain was supplying 36 million rounds of ammunition in the last few months alone. Britain’s ‘willingness to supply very large quantities of ammunition’, Lord Shepherd noted, ‘meant drawing on the British army’s own supplies’.

At the same time the Foreign Office was instructing its missions around the world to lie about the extent of this arms supply. It sent a ‘guidance’ memo to various diplomatic posts on 22 November saying that ‘we wish to discourage suggestions’ that the Nigerians, in their recent meetings with British officials, were seeking ‘to negotiate a massive arms deal’. Rather, ‘our policy of supplying in reasonable quantities arms of the kind traditionally supplied’ to Nigeria ‘will be maintained but no change in the recent pattern of supplies is to be expected’. So great is the culture of lying at the Foreign Office, it appears that policy is even to keep its own officials in the dark.

By the end of 1968 Britain had sold Nigeria £9 million worth of arms, £6 million of which was spent on small arms. A quarter of Nigeria’s supplies (by value) had come from the Soviet Union, also taking advantage of the war for its own benefit and trying no doubt to secure an opening into Nigeria provided by this opportunity. British officials consistently justified their arms supply by saying that if they stopped, the Russians would fill the gap. It was Britain’s oil interests, however, that was the dominating factor in Whitehall planners’ reasoning.

By the last two months of 1968, with hundreds of thousands dead by now, the fighting had reached a stalemate. The FMG had taken all Biafran territory apart from a small enclave within it consisting of 3 million people in an area the size of Kent. Biafrans were now dependent on two airstrips for outside supplies which were limited by both Gowon’s and Ojukwu’s refusals to allow sufficient numbers of aircraft to land. Humanitarian agencies were continuing calls for a ceasefire as suffering, especially starvation, had reached crisis proportions. ‘We shall continue to maintain our present policy, despite these heavy pressures on us’, Wilson told Gowon in November. Foreign Secretary Stewart instructed Lord Shepherd, on a visit to Lagos, to tell Gowon of the extraordinary steps Britain was taking to support him. Gowon should realise, Stewart said, that opposition to British policy ‘cuts right across the normal political or party divisions in the country and is especially strong in the various churches’. He also interestingly said that ‘similar feeling is also expressed within the Cabinet itself’ – such was the extremely thin base on which British support for the FMG was being provided. (One wonders about similar memos being written by Tony Blair to George Bush in 2003).

The Wilson government was keen to present itself as engaged in the search for peace – the files show that officials did so knowing that without appearing to be active they would not have been able to justify their support for the FMG. British government activity in peace negotiations invariably sought to avoid the involvement of the United Nations and was intended to support the FMG to maintain a united Nigeria and to achieve a solution on its terms only.

In public, British statements consistently blamed only the Biafrans, not the FMG, for obstructing peace negotiations and the delivery of humanitarian aid. On the latter, there were numerous proposals and counter-proposals made by both sides on the issue of night or dayflights, and river or land routes into Biafra, which obstructed the delivery of humanitarian aid to millions of suffering people. The FMG feared that the Biafrans would use the cover of humanitarian aid supplies to slip in arms deliveries; while the Biafrans believed the FMG would poison the supplies. There is no doubt that Ojukwu and the Biafran leadership were partly responsible for the failure to deliver adequate humanitarian aid, yet so were the FMG. Starvation of the Biafrans was no accident or simply a by-product of the war; it was a deliberate part of the FMG’s war policy.

Several memos by British officials that reached Wilson and other ministers painted a more accurate picture than the one pushed in public. These said that it was as least as much the FMG that were to blame as the Biafrans. Yet this never upset British policy to side unequivocally with Gowon’s FMG.

In March 1969 Wilson gave a public interview and lied that ‘we continue to supply on a limited scale arms – not bombs, not aircraft – to the government of Nigeria because we have always been their suppliers’. Not only was this untrue as a result of the agreements late the previous year; on the very same day as this interview, the government approved the export of 19 million rounds of ammunition, 10,000 grenades and 39,000 mortar bombs – bombs, that is, that Wilson had said Britain was not supplying at all, still less on a vast scale.

A day before the Wilson interview, a Foreign Office official had written that ‘we have over the last few months agreed to supply large quantities of arms and ammunition’ to Nigeria ‘to assist them in finishing the war in the absence of any further [peace] negotiations’. He also noted that ‘we have flown small arms ammunition to Nigeria… using Manston airport in Kent without attracting unfavourable press comment’.

It was therefore perhaps no surprise that Gowon could write to Wilson in April saying that ‘of all the governments in the Western world, yours has remained the only one that has openly maintained its policy of arms supplies to my government’. France, Belgium and the Netherlands, among others, had all announced a halt while the US continued its policy of not supplying arms to either side.

Two senior British RAF officers secretly visited Nigeria in August 1969 to advise the Nigerians on ‘how they could better prosecute the air war’. The main British interest, the files make clear, was to provide better protection of the oil installations, but the brief for the two officers stated that this impression should not be given to the Nigerians. The officers subsequently advised the Nigerians on a variety of tactics on ‘neutralisation of the rebel airstrips’. It was understood that destruction of the airstrips would put them out of use for daylight humanitarian relief flights. It is not clear whether such advice was put into action.

Britain armed the federal government all the way. In December 1969, just before the FMG’s final push that crushed the Biafrans, Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart was calling for stepping up military assistance including the supply of more armoured cars. These supplies by Britain, he wrote, ‘have undoubtedly been the most effective weapons in the ground war and have spear-headed all the major federal advances’.
Biafran resistance ended by mid January 1970. Wilson then sent another message to Gowon saying that ‘your army has won a decisive victory’ and has achieved ‘your great aim of preserving the unity and integrity of Nigeria’, adding: ‘As you know I and my colleagues have believed all along that you were right and we have never wavered in our support for you, your government and you policy, despite the violent attacks which have been made on us at times in parliament and in the press as well as overseas’.

The Deputy High Commissioner in Lagos added: ‘There is genuine gratitude (as indeed there should be) for what Britain has done and is still doing for this country, and in particular for Her Majesty’s Government’s courage in literally sticking to their guns over Biafra’.

The toll of the war was counted in a report for the British High Commission at the end of the month. It referred to a relief agency report estimating 1 1/2-2 million people were being fed with food relief supplies, around 700,000 of whom were refugees in camps dependent entirely on food aid. Three million refugees were crowded into a 2,500 square kilometre enclave in which not only food but medicine, housing and clothing were in short supply. The Biafran economy was shattered, cities were in ruins and schools, hospitals and transport facilities destroyed.[/b]

I broke it into parts because of its length, i will bolden the very important parts for easy perusal

SMARTgurUxxxxxxx:
I wish i could read all these?

[b][b][/b]Nigerian aggression, British support

British interests are very clearly revealed in the declassified files. ‘Our direct interests are trade and investment, including an important stake by Shell/BP in the eastern Region. There are nearly 20,000 British nationals in Nigeria, for whose welfare we are of course specially [sic] concerned’, the Foreign Office noted a few days before the outbreak of the war. Shell/BP’s investments amounted to around £200 million, with other British investment in Nigeria accounting for a further £90 million. It was then partly owned by the British government, and the largest producer of oil which provided most of Nigeria’s export earnings. Most of this oil was in the eastern region.
Commonwealth Minister George Thomas wrote in August 1967 that: ‘The sole immediate British interest in Nigeria is that the Nigerian economy should be brought back to a condition in which our substantial trade and investment in the country can be further developed, and particularly so we can regain access to important oil installations’.

Thomas further outlined the primary reason why Britain was so keen to preserve Nigerian unity, noting that ‘our only direct interest in the maintenance of the federation is that Nigeria has been developed as an economic unit and any disruption of this would have adverse effects on trade and development’. If Nigeria were to break up, he added: ‘We cannot expect that economic cooperation between the component parts of what was Nigeria, particularly between the East and the West, will necessarily enable development and trade to proceed at the same level as they would have done in a unified Nigeria; nor can we now count on the Shell/BP oil concession being regained on the same terms as in the past if the East and the mid-West assume full control of their own economies’.

Ojukwu initially tried to get Shell/BP to pay royalties to the Biafran government rather than the FMG. The oil companies, after giving the Biafrans a small token payment, eventually refused and Ojuwku responded by sequestering Shell’s property and installations, forbidding Shell to do any further business and ordering all its staff out. They ‘have much to lose if the FMG do not achieve the expected victory’, George Thomas noted in August 1967. A key British aim throughout the war was to secure the lifting of the blockade which Gowon imposed on the east and which stopped oil exports.

In the run-up to Gowon’s declaration of war, Britain had made it clear to the FMG that it completely supported Nigerian unity. George Thomas had told the Nigerian High Commissioner in London at the end of April 1967, for example, that ‘the Federal government had our sympathy and our full support’ but said that he hoped the use of force against the east could be avoided. On 28 May Gowon, having just declared a state of emergency, explicitly told Britain’s Defence Attache that the FMG was likely to ‘mount an invasion from the north’. Gowon asked whether Britain would provide fighter cover for the attack and naval support to reinforce the blockade of Eastern ports; the Defence Attache replied that both were out of the question.

By the time Gowon ordered military action in early July, therefore, Britain had refused Nigerian requests to be militarily involved and had urged Gowon to seek a ‘peaceful’ solution. However, the Wilson government had also assured Gowon of British support for Nigerian unity at a time when military preparations were taking place. And Britain had also made no signs that it might cut off, or reduce, arms supplies if a military campaign were launched.

The new High Commissioner in Lagos, Sir David Hunt, wrote in a memo to London on 12 June that the ‘only way… of preserving unity [sic] of Nigeria is to remove Ojukwu by force’. He said that Ojukwu was committed to remaining the ruler of an independent state and that British interests lay in firmly supporting the FMG.

Before going to war, Gowon began what was to become a two and half year long shopping list of arms that the FMG wanted from Britain. On 1 July he asked Britain for jet fighter/bomber aircraft, six fast boats and 24 anti-aircraft guns. ‘We want to help the Federal Government in any way we can’, British officials noted. However, Britain rejected supplying the aircraft, fearing that they would publicly demonstrate direct British intervention in the war and, at this stage, also rejected supplying the boats. London did, however, agree to supply the anti-aircraft guns and to provide training courses to use them.

The Deputy High Commissioner in Enugu, Biafra’s main city, noted that the supply of these anti-aircraft guns and their ammunition would be seen as British backing for the FMG and also that they were not entirely defensive weapons anyway since ‘they could also take on an offensive role if mounted in an invasion fleet’. Nevertheless, the government’s news department was instructed to stress the ‘defensive nature of these weapons’ when pressed but generally to avoid publicity on their export from Britain. High Commissioner Hunt said that ‘it would be better to use civil aircraft’ to deliver these guns and secured agreement from the Nigerians that ‘there would be no publicity’ in supplying them.

Faced with Gowon’s complaints about Britain not supplying more arms, Wilson also agreed in mid-July to supply the FMG with the fast patrol boats. This was done in the knowledge that they would help the FMG maintain the blockade against Biafra. Wilson wrote to Gowon saying that ‘we have demonstrated in many ways our support for your government as the legal government of Nigeria and our refusal to recognise the secessionists’. He also told him that Britain does ‘not intend to put any obstacle in the way’ of orders for ‘reasonable quantities of military material of types similar to those you have obtained here in the past’. Gowon replied saying that ‘I have taken note of your concurrence for the usual purchases of arms supplies to continue and will take advantage of what is available now and others when necessary’.

By early August Biafran forces had made major gains against the FMG and had invaded the mid-West region. Commonwealth Minister George Thomas noted that ‘the chances of a clear-cut military decision being achieved by either side now look rather distant’. Rather, ‘we are now faced with the probability of an escalating and increasingly disorderly war, with both sides shopping around for arms’. In this situation, he raised the option of Britain launching a peace offensive and halting all arms supplies. But this was rejected by David Hunt in Lagos and others since it would cause ‘great resentment’ on the part of the FMG against the British government and be regarded as a ‘hostile act’. Instead, the government decided to continue the flow of arms and ammunition of types previously supplied by Britain but to continue to refuse supplies of ‘sophisticated equipment’ like aircraft and tanks.

The decision to continue arms exports was taken when it had already become clear in the behaviour of the Nigerian forces that any weapons supplied would be likely to be used against civilians. It was also at a time when Commonwealth Secretary General Arnold Smith was making renewed attempts to push for peace negotiations after having been rebuffed by Gowon in a visit to Lagos in early July.

By early November 1967 the FMG had pushed back the Biafrans and captured Enugu; British officials were now reporting that the FMG had ‘a clear military advantage’. Now that our side seemed like winning, talk of reducing arms to them disappeared; George Thomas now said that ‘it seems to me that British interests would now be served by a quick FMG victory’. He recommended that the arms export policy be ‘relaxed’ and to supply Lagos with items that ‘have importance in increasing their ability to achieve a quicker victory’. This meant ‘reasonable quantities’ of equipment such as mortars and ‘infantry weapons generally’, though not aircraft or other ‘sophisticated’ equipment.

On 23 November 1967 the Cabinet agreed that ‘a quick Federal military victory’ provided the best hope for ‘an early end to the fighting’. By early December, Commonwealth Secretary George Thomson [sic, not Thomas. need also to check cos he may have been FO minister at this time’ he certainly became CW sec by mid 68] noted that the ‘lack of supplies and ammunition is one of things that are holding operations up’. He said that Britain should agree to the FMG’s recent shopping list since ‘a favourable response to this request ought to give us every chance of establishing ourselves again as the main supplier of the Nigerian forces after the war’. If the war ended soon, the Nigerian economy will start expanding and ‘there should be valuable business to be done’. Also: ‘Anything that we now do to assist the FMG should help our oil companies to re-establish and expand their activities in Nigeria after the war, and, more generally should help our commercial and political relationship with postwar Nigeria’.[b][/b]

On 30 May 1967 Biafra declared independence and on 7 July the FMG began operations to defeat it. It lasted until January 1970 as an extremely well-equipped Nigerian federal army of over 85,000 men supplied by Britain, the Soviet Union and few others, took on a volunteer Biafran army, much of whose equipment initially came from captured Nigerian supplies and which only later was able to procure relatively small quantities of arms from outside.

The background is therefore very complex and it remains far from clear cut as to where the ‘blame’ lay for the failure of peaceful negotiations and the resort to war. It does appear, however, that the FMG did go back on its agreement at Aburi on the extent of regional autonomy it was prepared to offer the easterners. Before they began to back the FMG unequivocally once war began, British officials had previously recognised the legitimacy of some of Ojukwu’s claims. The High British Commissioner in Lagos, Sir Francis Cumming-Bruce, had told Gowon in November 1966, for example, that the September 1966 massacres of the Ibos in the north ‘changed the relationship between the regions and made it impossible for eastern Nigerians to associate with northerners on the same basis as in the past’. The issue was one of basic ‘law and order and physical safety throughout the federation’. He told Gowon that the FMG had to go ‘a considerable distance to meet the views of Colonel Ojukwu’.

British officials also recognised that the Aburi agreements were ‘extremely woolly on many important points and lend themselves to infinite arguments over interpretation’. By end January 1967 Cumming-Bruce was saying that both Gowon and Ojuwku were ‘seriously at fault and they share responsibility for poisoning of atmosphere [sic]’.

Then there was the wider question of whether it was legitimate for a region to secede and whether Biafra should have been allowed to establish its independence. Again, a lot of complex issues are involved. British officials feared that if Biafra were to secede many other regions in Africa would too, threatening ‘stability’ across the whole of the continent. Most of the great powers, including the US and Soviet Union, shared this view largely for the same reason.

Yet there appears to be no reason why Biafra, with its 15 million people, could not have established a viable, independent state. Biafrans argued that they were a people with a distinctive language and culture, that they were Christian as opposed to the Muslim communities lumped into the Nigeria federal state, which had, after all, been a colonial creation. In fact, Biafra was also one of the most developed regions in Africa with a high density of roads, schools, hospitals and factories. The struggle for an independent state certainly appeared to have the support of the majority of Biafrans, whose sense of nationhood deepened throughout the war as enormous sacrifices were made to contribute to the war effort.

What is crystal clear is that the wishes of the Biafrans were never a major concern of British planners; what they wanted, or what Nigerians elsewhere in the federation wanted, was simply not an issue for Whitehall. There is simply no reference in the government files, that I have seen, to this being a consideration. The priorities for London were maintaining the unity of Nigeria for geo-political interests and protecting British oil interests. This meant that Gowon’s FMG was backed right from the start. But the files also reveal astonishing levels of connivance with the FMG’s aggression.

Nigeria’s war over Biafra, 1967-70
February 13, 2007
Nigeria’s war over Biafra, 1967-70

By Mark Curtis

An edited extract from Unpeople: Britain’s Secret Human Right Abuses

The formerly secret files on the Nigerian civil war in the late 1960s show very clear British complicity in the Nigerian government’s aggression against the region of Biafra, where an independence movement was struggling to secede from Nigeria. This brutal civil war resulted in between one and three million deaths; it also significantly helped shape modern Nigeria, and not least the division of oil revenues between the central government and the regions and people.

Background to civil war

For those in Britain old enough to remember the war in Nigeria in the late 1960s, ‘Biafra’ probably still conjures up images of starving children – the result of the blockade imposed by the Nigerian government in Lagos to defeat the secession of the eastern region, Biafra. For Biafrans themselves, the period was one of immense suffering – it is still not known how many died at this time as a direct result of the war and the blockade, but it is believed to be at least one million and as high as three million.

For those seeking to understand Britain’s role in the world, there is now an important side of the Biafran story to add – British complicity in the slaughter. The declassified files show that the then Wilson government backed the Nigerian government all the way, arming its aggression and apologising for its actions. It is one of the sorrier stories in British foreign policy, though by no means unusual.

The immediate background to the war was a complex one of tensions and violence between Nigeria’s regions and ethnic groups, especially between those from the east and the north. In January 1966 army officers had attempted to seize power and the conspirators, most of whom were Ibos (from the East) assassinated several leading political figures as well as officers of northern origin. Army commander Major General Ironsi, also an Ibo, intervened to restore discipline in the army, suspended the constitution, banned political parties, formed a Federal Military Government (FMG) and appointed military governors to each of Nigeria’s regions.

Ironsi’s decree in March 1966, which abolished the Nigerian federation and unified the federal and regional civil services, was perceived by many not as an effort to establish a unitary government but as a plot by the Ibo to dominate Nigeria. Troops of northern origin, who dominated the Nigerian infantry, became increasingly restive and fighting broke out between them and Ibo soldiers in garrisons in the south. In June, mobs in northern cities, aided by local officials, carried out a pogrom against resident Ibos, massacring several hundred people and destroying Ibo-owned property.

It was in this context that in July 1966 northern officers staged a countercoup during which Ironsi and other Ibo officers were killed. Lieutenant Colonel (later General) Yakubu ‘Jack’ Gowon emerged as leader. The aim of the coup was both to take revenge on the Ibos for the coup in January but also to promote the secession of the north, although Gowon soon pulled back from calling explicitly for this. Gowon named himself as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and head of the military government, which was rejected by the military governor in the eastern region, Lieutenant Colonel Ojukwu, who claimed, with some justification, that the Gowon regime was illegitimate.

Throughout late 1966 and 1967 the tempo of violence increased. In September 1966 attacks on Ibos in the north were renewed with unprecedented ferocity, stirred up, eastern region officials believed, by northern political leaders. Reports circulated that troops from the northern region had participated in the massacres. The estimated number of deaths ranged from 10,000 to as high as 30,000. More than one million Ibos returned to the eastern region in fear.

In January 1967 the military leaders met in Aburi, Ghana. By this time the eastern region under Ojukwu was threatening secession. Many of Ojukwu’s eastern colleagues were now arguing that the massacres the previous September showed that the country could not be reunited amicably. In a last minute effort at Aburi to hold Nigeria together, an accord was agreed that provided for a loose confederation of regions. Gowon issued a decree implementing the Aburi agreement and even the northern region now favoured the formation of a multistate federation. The federal civil service, however, vigorously opposed the Aburi agreement and sought to scupper it.

Ojukwu and Gowon then disputed what exactly had been agreed at Aburi, especially after the Federal Military Government (FMG) issued a further decree in March which was seen by Ojukwu as reneging on the FMG’s commitment at Aburi to give the eastern region greater autonomy. The new decree gave the federal government the right to declare a state of emergency in any region and to ensure that any regional government could not undermine the executive authority of the federal government. Ojukwu then gave an ultimatum to Gowon that the eastern region would begin implementing its understanding of the Aburi agreement, providing for greater regional autonomy, by 31 March.

While Biafra was threatening to secede and declare an independent state, the FMG imposed sanctions against it to bring it into line. On 26 May the eastern region consultative assembly voted to secede from Nigeria and the following day Gowon declared a state of emergency throughout the country, banned political activity and announced a decree restoring full powers to the FMG. Also announced was a decree dividing the country into twelve states, including six in the north and three in the east.

Thanks bro. Please more inputs will be appreciated people.

Folaroyal:
Well.. Let's wait for inputs from people who may have had the experience otherwise, a guessed answer may not suffice.
I can only confirm to you that USA allows that... cos I know more than 2 people who have done it... in fact the schools will offer to process I-20 for you and help with your change of status to F-2. For Canada... I cannot confirm but there are applications you can do while on visiting.
Regards

Hello fam, please i want to ask if it's possible to convert a visitor's visa to a student visa while you are in Canada? or even apply for a student visa while on a visiting visa to Canada? What will be the person's chances?

More than 30 people confirmed dead already. Propaganda can never win the war in North East. The soldiers need arms and intelligence gathering, not propaganda. What is the function of DSS in this country? To arrest BDC operators to force down exchange rate instead of gathering information about attacks like this. Everything in this country is now upside down
Nigeria, I want to get down here please, i am not doing again.

H

Northerners Accuse Fayemi Of Executing Yoruba Agenda In Ministry Of Mines And Steel Development
Kayode Fayemi, Minister of Mines and Steel Development, has been accused of executing a policy designed to marginalize Northerners in the ministry for the sole benefit of the Southwest geo-political zone.

The accusation was contained in a public petition addressed to President Muhammad Buhari.

BY SAHARAREPORTERS, NEW YORKNOV 12, 2016

Kayode Fayemi, Minister of Mines and Steel Development, has been accused of executing a policy designed to marginalize Northerners in the ministry for the sole benefit of the Southwest geo-political zone.

The accusation was contained in a public petition addressed to President Muhammad Buhari.

Signed by Joshua Yilnung and Halidu Gimba, the petition called on the President to stop the minister's undisguised nepotism and sectionalism in the ministry before they cause greater disharmony.

According to the petitioners, Dr. Fayemi, in concert with ethnic affiliates in the ministry, is working on a plot to implicate Directors-General of Northern extraction in the ministry. The aim of the plot, explained the petitioners, is to create vacancies in their positions to be filled by people from the southwest, where the minister hails from.

"Indeed Nigerians of other extractions do not find favor in the Ministry of Mines and Steel other than southwesterners," alleged the petition. a

Specifically targeted, the petitioners claimed are four Directors-General (DGs) of parastatals of the Ministry. These parastatals are National Metallurgical Development Centre, Jos; National Institute of Mines and Geo-Science, Jos; National Steel Raw Materials Exploration Agency, Kaduna; and Solid Minerals Development Fund, Abuja.

The petitioners accused the minister of masterminding the crises in each of the parastatals in furtherance of his goal of replacing them with southwesterners. For example, alleged the petition, the D-G of the Jos-based National Metallurgical Development Centre has been battling with crisis at the center. The crisis is alleged to have been instigated by Dr. Fayemi, who was said to have pushed some staff to write a petition containing 17 workers' union issues against the DG, who was not even served the petition.

However, only three of the issues were related to the union, while the others were "frivolous" and were meant to be used by Dr. Fayemi to remove the DG and replace him with a Yoruba man.

"Facts available to us later revealed that the petitions and pressure by the union against the leadership of the DG was an orchestration by the minister and his cronies. "Notwithstanding the clear resolution of the issues, the DG, who is long overdue for confirmation, is being held on the line, while the minister is on a voyage of giving a dog a bad name in order to kill it," said the Northerners' petition.

It further alleged that a professor of Yoruba extraction is being lined up to replace the DG. The said professor, it was equally claimed, had told staff of the centre that it is the time of the southwest to run the show in the ministry. The next in line to the DG, said the Northerners, is also a Yoruba man.

The DG of Solid Minerals Development Fund is also said to have functioned in acting capacity for a long time, with Fayemi refusing to confirm her despite being competent. The other DGs are said to also have petitions against them, which were provoked by Dr. Fayemi, who is said to be harassing them with security agencies.

"The management crises, sectionalism and nepotism are detailing the ministry from its core objectives and making a mockery of the anti-corruption fight by the present administration and are injurious to the country's unity and national cohesion," the petitioners argued.

Just watch as this case is re-assigned to Justice Okon Abang

You lack knowledge of Anambra politics, Peter Obi was impeached twice and had to go through the courts to retrieve his mandate, he was robbed of his electoral mandate twice by PDP, his state Assembly was populated by PDP guys same as Anambra state representatives at the federal level were all in PDP, no other Governor faced the battles he faced. So do a little research and stop showcasing your ignorance here

jaybee3:
It's like you guys lack basic understanding of Governance structure

He was able to achieve all that as the CEO of the state simply because he presided over an assembly that wasn't divided along ethnic, religion or party lines.

Nigeria as a whole is a different kettle of fish backed by unworkable constitution that will force him into submission.

His laudable feats will be hard to reproduce at the centre

The man who took us to recession two times in our lifetime as a sovereign nation, the man without WAEC certificate, the man who has ~stolen~ invested 2.2trillion naira in two years yet they only infrastructure he has built is Daura helipad, the man that posted a picture of himself drinking satchet Milo when he was campaigning but increased his feeding budget to N1.7b when he won, The rigger of Edo election, Mr Kim Kardashian himself; the only President that launched a photo book of himself in year that his country's GDP slide to -2%, inflation rose to 17% and 4.5m people lost their jobs.The man who asks ordinary Nigerians to buy made in Nigeria while his wife uses a N3m Hermes handbag. If i say BU and you say HA another say RI; omo ma you sabi.

Nigeria's militant Islamist group Boko Haram has hoisted its flag in three villages in the north-east after over-running them yesterday, a security source has said.

The militants slaughtered at least eight people, including a village elder, during the attack, the security source and residents said.

The villages - Kubirivour, Boftari and Kuburmbalah - are near Chibok town, from where the militants captured more than 200 schoolgirls in 2014.

Others sources said the militants were still in control of Malam Fatori town, on the Nigeria-Niger border.

Last Sunday, Nigerian troops recaptured the town from the jihadists. However, the militants reinforced their ranks and regained control of the town.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-africa-37390849?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=57ea5a89e4b0ee4d9b013e3b%26Boko%20Haram%20%27hoists%20flag%20in%20villages%27%26&ns_fee=0#post_57ea5a89e4b0ee4d9b013e3b

Michael Olusegun Abraham, an aspirant for the governorship ticket of the All Progressives Congress, APC, in Ondo State, has again expressed opposition to the emergence of a former President of the Nigeria Bar Association, NBA, Rotimi Akeredolu, SAN, as candidate.
Abraham, alongside two other aggrieved APC governorship aspirants, last Friday rejected the decision of the party’s National Working Committee, NWC, to make a U-turn by upholding Akeredolu’s candidature.

In a letter he wrote to the party, Abraham, who is believed to have the backing of APC national leader, Bola Tinubu, noted that he was disappointed at Oyegun for allegedly overruling the initial decision of the NWC which ordered the conduct of a fresh primary.


The letter reads: “Dear members, delegates, leaders of our great party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the members of the public in Ondo State, I greet you all.

“The past few days have been quite eventful in the annals of our party in Ondo State, the eyes of the entire nation was on us, waiting to see how we were going to emerge from the unfortunate irregularities that befell the September 3rd gubernatorial primary election of our party.

“After painstaking deliberation and consideration of evidence-backed petitions by our party’s Electoral Appeal Committee and the National Working Committee (NWC), it was recommended that the September 3rd Primary election be annulled, and thankfully, this recommendation was ratified and upheld by a majority of our NWC, yesterday.

“And just like most of you, I was disappointed at the inexplicably unexpected and unjustifiable move by our party’s National Chairman, Chief John Odigie-Oyegun, to have disregarded this informed stance of the NWC that favoured annulment of that fraud-ridden primary, moving ahead to submit a name to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).


“It is a move that is akin to injustice, and we know it won’t stand. I condemn it in strong terms, and I’m sure a lot of us do.

“We can’t win the general election by subverting the truth, especially not among the kind of Ondo people who relentlessly dislike injustice, we must not play into the hand of the opposition, who have been seemingly empowered in the little time our primary election has remained inconclusive.

“This is why this latest inexplicable unilateral move by Chief Oyegun against the wish of the people, the eligible delegates and the leaders of the party in the vested powers of the NWC, is unacceptable and cannot stand.

“I am very happy to assure you that by carefully weighed constitutional means, this my mandate of practical governance and blessings for the great people of Ondo State will be reclaimed.

“Our petition noted that 157 fake delegates were injected into the delegates’ list in 12 out of the 18 local governments areas (LGAs). This includes 54 delegates loyal to our mandate in, at least, three LGAs of Akoko North West (13), Akoko North East (26) and Idanre (15), who were disenfranchised and substituted with fake delegates.

“We have sought that these disenfranchised votes should be added to my poll (635), after the fake and substituted ones have been removed from votes polled by the acclaimed beneficiary. Details on these will be made public in earnest.

“It is on these two tenable fronts, that is, the NWC’s verdict of an annulment and rerun, but, more importantly, the reconsideration, re-enfranchising, recount and rightful allotting of the amount of eligible delegates’ votes, that I seek a reclamation of my mandate to be declared as the flag bearer of our party in the forthcoming general election in Ondo state.

“My consultations are ongoing, and I will give an official and more detailed address very soon.

It’s time to seek redress and RECLAIM OUR MANDATE!http://dailypost.ng/2016/09/25/ondo-election-tinubus-rumored-candidate-abraham-carpets-oyegun-letter-apc/?utm_source=snap_dp1&utm_medium=twitter

Lalasticala

"No Referendum For Biafra"-President Buhari

Nigeria's President Muhammadu Buhari today foreclosed any chance for a referendum as a path to bring healing and closure to the vexing issue of Biafra. He made the statement during a media event in New York City at the end of his visit to the United States as the leader of Nigeria's delegation to the 71th United Nations' General Assembly. The president stated that the choice left for Biafran activists is to form a political party that would advance their interest within the Nigerian democratic space.

BY SAHARAREPORTERS, NEW YORKSEP 24, 2016
Nigeria's President Muhammadu Buhari today foreclosed any chance for a referendum as a path to bring healing and closure to the vexing issue of Biafra. He made the statement during a media event in New York City at the end of his visit to the United States as the leader of Nigeria's delegation to the 71th United Nations' General Assembly.

The president stated that the choice left for Biafran activists is to form a political party that would advance their interest within the Nigerian democratic space.

The president’s advice to Biafrans activists came a day after commercial activities in some key cities in the South East, and South-South of Nigeria were grounded following a stay at home order from the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB ). There were also protests in various cities around the world by Biafran activists demanding the release from prison of IPOB's leader, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu.

In recent past, the president had been dismissive of Biafran agitators as kids who did not see the Biafra-Nigeria Civil War. A few weeks ago, while speaking to Youth Corp members who visited him at his country home in Daura, the president pressed on them to ask their friends to forget Biafra.

Mr. Buhari also used the opportunity offered by the media event to outline the accomplishments of his trip to the General Assembly. He stated that Nigeria was well represented at various meetings held as part of the General Assembly. President Buhari talked about Nigeria's signing of the Paris Climate Change Accord and progress made at the Chad Basin conference. He announced that the US and the UK pledged over $300 million dollars to support the efforts of his government.

Media personnel at the event were disappointed that the president was not going to take questions from the media despite the event being tagged a press conference. At the insistence of SaharaTV's Adeola Fayehun, the president reconsidered the position and took just three questions. He also granted a ten-minute interview to the Hausa Service of the Voice of America.

Accompanying the president to the event were the governors of Lagos and Zamfara states. Other government officials present were ministers of Foreign Affairs, Justice, Defence, Internal Affairs and other top government officials.

http://saharareporters.com/2016/09/24/no-referendum-biafra-president-buhari

So change begins with the average Olu, Ibrahim and Emeka out there, what happens to our leaders? You think most people will commit these crimes and rsik jail time and possibly death if they had any hope that things would get better? If you conduct a research, you will observe that crimes are on the rise this year more than the previous years. Great economic policies churns out stronger middleclass and happier citizens and Nonsense policies like WAI because one day the people will get tired of being whipped and hungry, they will fight back, no one will save y'all then. Ask Ghadaffi, his elite bodyguard couldn't save him when the people came for him, stay in Aso Rock and be eating 1.7b naira worth of food.

Adminisher:
Very very relevant policies. Nigerians are the most expected Nationality to be embarrassed at an airport or suspected of a crime. This is because we have exported a traits that are not native to us in our individual ethnic national characters but we somehow adopted willy nilly over the years .
The ECONOMIST should shut up and let us target morality and ethics anew at a new generation . At least we can start from Junior Secondary Schools to start getting things right.

I have been queuing since i was born without the help of whips and WAI, now kindly answer me, are you a donkey?

Standing5:
Being a donkey starts from the head. Are you planning not to queue up properly?

Just imagine the millions of taxpayers money that was invested on such a hypocritical campaign, in a recession year Our President is wasting our money on inanities like ' Change begins with me' while living off an annual feeding budget of 1.7b naira while millions of its people should 'change' on empty stomachs while himself and his family live like royalties.

drss2:
d above is a graphic detailed description of tyranism n dictatorship in nigeria today.

Relevant in what way? So you want to be whipped before you queue up in a bank, are you a donkey?

Standing5:
Good observation but those policies are still relevant today.

Tolu Ogunlesi, The President's PA on new media, used to have great rapport with The Economist, wonder what happened? They couldn't have posted this report without his knowledge no?

Nigeria’s war against indiscipline
Behave or be whipped
A former dictator dredges up old social policies
Sep 24th 2016 | LAGOS

The frog jump—a national sport

NIGERIANS might be forgiven for thinking they have travelled back in time. Their president, Muhammadu Buhari, has revived some of the economic policies he favoured when he was last in power, as a military dictator in the 1980s, such as restricting imports and propping up the currency. Such retro thinking has failed to rescue Nigeria from its first recession in 20 years; indeed, it has probably made it worse. And now social policy is going back in time, too.

Under a new “national reorientation” campaign called “Change Begins with Me” Mr Buhari wants to tame Nigerians. Moral “degeneration”, he says, is the reason that drivers run red lights and militants blow up pipelines. “Our value system has been badly eroded,” the president lamented in a speech that plagiarised Barack Obama’s 2008 victory address. A presidential spokesman blamed an “overzealous” speech-writer who will face “appropriate sanction”.

Others may face the same fate. A “War Against Indiscipline” brigade, first drafted by Mr Buhari in 1984, was relaunched last month and is hunting for funds for its 150,000 volunteers, who are patriotically clad in green and white. According to the National Orientation Agency (whose Orwellian departments include one for “Behaviour Modification”), their job is to restore order and “inculcate the spirit of nationalism in all Nigerians”.
Nigeria’s public services have been hollowed out by years of corruption, and some locals remember the era of military rule as more orderly. Others remember it as brutal. During Mr Buhari’s first War Against Indiscipline soldiers used horse whips to beat those who littered or jumped queues and punished others by making them jump like frogs. “It became totally arbitrary,” says Clement Nwankwo, a human-rights campaigner. One of his friends, he recalls, was jailed for owning an unlicensed telex machine.

The dangers of unleashing the moral police are manifest. One man has been arrested for naming his dog after the president. In Kano, a mostly Muslim northern state, an Islamic unit called the Hisbah has long terrorised people accused of committing adultery.
Mr Buhari’s critics gripe that, if he wants to make Nigeria a more moral country, he should start by cleaning up the government. Police officers regularly extort bribes with menaces. The army is accused of killing and torturing civilians. In Lagos the state government’s “Kick Against Indiscipline” enforcement team demands weekly bribes from long-suffering roadside vendors.

Matthew Kukah, a bishop in the northern city of Sokoto, doubts that Mr Buhari’s campaign will work. “Chaos is a function of scarcity,” he argues. “You cannot expect hungry people to line up for a few bags of rice.”

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21707549-former-dictator-dredges-up-old-social-policies-behave-or-be-whipped?frsc=dg%7Cc

ChetaNwaeze:
Abu'm nwafo Igbo

doing your NYSC in East doesn't make you igbo

Afonja thread, created by Afonja and for Afonjas

LMAO Replying yourself like a schizophrenic patient . This pattern is dead na try new one bro. You have been found out already. Pls answer me, why do Ogun people like cutting off people's heart for juju?

ObikeNkem:
Onye Anambra Ndi Ogwu Ego

you know them bro, Chetanwaeze, Osuibo, this Enuguboy, nkemObi, all Afonjas bro

joeprince23:
U ar an e-diot,I have always suspected that you are not from nsukka,you ar not even igbo. I wonder how old you are? U think bad mouthing anambra will cause confusing amongs igbos online?

That guy is Yoruba, you should know by Modus Operandi by now

OdenigboAroli:
Igbos,come and see the people you with to form a political front with...lol

Enuguboy4nsk:
only the truth shall set us free Mr

Tell your people to stop raping their daughters first, tell them to stop cutting off people's hearts for juju like savages.