birdman:


Let me take your post in pieces. First off, the issue that we are subservient to the North. In the 50 year history of Nigeria, the opposition has always been primarily from the SW. And in the darkest days of Abacha, as I remember, it was the SW (special mention to Alfred Rewane and Saro Wiwa too) that was bearing the brunt. As I remember, Ojukwu openly did an about turn on June 12, and won back 2 of his houses that had been seized for decades. As Soyinka exclaimed at the brazen betrayal, "oro pesi jeee!". Brother pazienza, where were all the Igbo umbrella groups? Same story when IBB was in power. And Shagari. Say what you will, but it is on record that majority of Yoruba leadership did not bend to the power of ghana-must-go bags in any administration.

On to your next point. The treason claims in which the FG said Awo was working with Nkrumah was nonsense. You know it, Zik knew it, Balewa knew it.
And Balewa knew there was no way Awo was going down on such ridiculous charges. For legal nonsense to stick, they needed political backing. Akintola was meant to wrest control from Awo in the West, but he ended up being a minor irritation at best, even with his oratorical skills. And this is where Zik comes in. Without Zik and his party's support, Awo goes nowhere, Yoruba judge or not. (RIP to Adesanya and co who mounted vigorous defense in those dark days) . When Zik gave his political consent, he thought he was on his way to ultimate power, but it backfired. Alas the illterate Northerner was smarter than he calculated! And innocent people died for that mistake. Awo did what he was supposed to do. Protect himself and his people from power mongers.

Getting back to the original point, Nyerere makes great points about the validity of a people self determining their own future. I have no problem with that. Neither does Awo or Yorubas. It is important that every African be his brother's keeper. But lets tell the truth and stop lying on other people to make ourselves look better. You were not innocent actors trying to get their own homeland. You were also part instigators, playing a power game of thrones without considering the cost. And it bit you. And you have ever since been trying to lay the blame at other people's feet. But thank God, the records are still preserved to this day.

Special shout out to all the Nigerians, Igbo or not who are dedicated to seeing the Nigeria and the black race make something of themselves instead of wallowing in hate forever.

SW never played opposition willingly,circumstances beyond their control always forced them into opposition. Awo wanted to be at the centre, but got burnt by his treachery and was relegated to opposition, he really had no option, and still eyed the centre, hence he committed treason. He never hesitated the moment an opportunity to be at the centre was presented to him by Gowon, he grabbed it with both hands, even if it meant he was to bend to the North.

Tinubu has been in opposition for Years now, he was not there because he wanted to, situation forced him, and once he got the opportunity to be at the centre, even if it meant playing second fiddle to the North, he grabbed it fast.

Don't lecture me about SW opposition politics, as you can see, I know it all.


Awo treason and criminal case wasn't nonsense, he was tried in a court of law, and found guilty. The one who ruled on his case was a Yoruba judge, the one who wanted his political demise was Akintola, the one who wanted his head for trying to usurp his government was Balewa. But somehow, you want us to ignore them all, and hold Zik responsible, simply because Zik was Igbo. Are you for real? You mean Zik should upturn the ruling of a court of law and also defy Balewa and Akintola just to save Awo? Zik must have been a super Man to pull that off.

Awo greed and lust for power dug his grave for him, Zik simply allowed him lie in his grave in Peace. He did no wrong.

"Getting back to the original point,
Nyerere makes great points about
the validity of a people self
determining their own future. I have
no problem with that. Neither does
Awo or Yorubas. It is important that
every African be his brother's
keeper. But lets tell the truth and
stop lying on other people to make
ourselves look better. You were not
innocent actors trying to get their
own homeland. You were also part
instigators, playing a power game
of thrones without considering the
cost. And it bit you" .


This part of your post is contradicting and vague.
In one instance, you agree with Nyerere, then you still ended insinuating that Ndiigbo deserved the massacres, for in your words the innocent Igbos that were being massacred were not innocent, they were instigators playing power game, and got bit.

Well, until you are able to prove that Nzeogwu coup was pro Igbo, and that he was mandated in a pan Igbo meeting to carry out the coup, your above post remain evil and devilish. For it attempts to pass off the believe that Ndiigbo must pay for the actions of Nzeogwu and co, simply because they belong to same ethnic group as Nzeogwu. Nzeogwu sins must be theirs, Nzeogwu guilt must be theirs.

You, my friend are no brother of mine.

DiademSh07:

Just say, majority were aniocha/Oshimili.
Only Anuku was an Ika guy among the biafrans. And that's inconsequential because there were also 1-2 yorubas (Banjo & Ademulegun?) among the biafrans.
Ibos and lies, very synonymous!
The part underlined is hilarious! I school in Benin and believe me, no delta person calls himself/herself delta igbo! If at all, they want to have any connection with the word igbo, they call themselves delta ibo.
Do you know what the word 'igbo' means in ukwuani? It means slaves!
That's why I don't even believe you a deltan to begin with!
Bunch of wanderers!

And this useless buf00n, you school in Benin, miles away from Anioma land and automatically you became the spokesperson of Igbo in delta. This is literally why hhate you yorubas with every fiber of my being. All you worthless tribe try so hard to do is use your useless fat mouth to try and divide people..

F2king ediot. Some anioma group call themselves delta igbo while others call themselves igbo because they view the term delta igbo as offensive and divisive while the remaining others we call deniers based on the fact they call themselves by their lands. Attaché by force ediot. Desperate to be one of us but can NEVER in your worthless life be Delta talkless of DELTA IGBO. Try again. Attaché

As for your ika statement. Read and weep

The II divisions made of mainly Ika Ibos never surrendered and under Colonel Nwawo defended Nnewi the only major Biafran city that never fell until the end. 

---Emeka Esogbue
http://leadershiptrainingtutorials.com/leadershiptraining/defining-leadership/anioma-the-need-for-identity-and-leadership/

Even your loud mouth coward adekunle attested to it

(xix) Rebels Training Camps: It is reported that the rebels have their training grounds at the following places:

(a) Bende Police Station.

(b) Emeake Abam Rubber Estate.

Re-enforcement of the rebel troops still hanging around Ikot Ekpene area is made mainly from two camps.

(xx) Rebel Positions -Abak/Opobo: It is reliably learnt that the rebel soldiers have positioned themselves in the following places in Abak and Opobo Division:

(a) Ikot Ibritam up to Keffi and Ikot Inyang.

(b) Afaha and Ukanafun.

(c) Northern Ukanafun Court Hall and Northern Afaha Court Hall.

(d) Ikot Oku Usung up to Urua Etim Ikot Anta.

(e) Obong Utit Idim, here they have a detention camp where arrested natives are detained.

(f) Nkek School premises and Nkek Qua Iboe Church premises.

(g) Obo Ekpo Market and Obong Customary Court hall in Utu Etim Ekpo and six miles to Asumini.

(h) The whole of Ika.

http://www.nigerialinks.com/BOOKS/scorpion/


Similar to Asaba, ika experienced one of bloodiest attacks by Nigerian soliders for just being igbos

"In the second waves of massacres during the civil war, the Binis and other non-Igbo military officers of Mid-West origin led the murderous attacks on Ika Igbo's"

(Blood On The Niger, E. Okocha).

Even the Midwest invasion of 1967 article by a urhobo which Nigerians parade around told una or rather accused Asaba, aboh and ika soldiers were the biafran soldiers that's invaded their land or so they claim

The reason why ika had the highest soliders is because they had the highest number of soliders from midwest in NA military prior to the war

Extremely doubtful you live or even schooled in benini. Probably attaché by force to them, similar to how you try to attaché by force to delta. SW monkey stick to your tribe. STOP attaché. Desperately want to be is. Ntoooor. You can never be us.

DiademSh07:

Like I said earlier, you ibo can take with you the Enuani people of Anioma if these people wants to secede with you because we all know that they descended from the ibos!
And don't forget, Enuani tribe includes the Aniocha/Oshmili people, Ibusa e.t.c. However, stop forcing your fraud ideologies on the ukwuanis and the ikas!

Lol! The gist before now was that there are no Igbos in SS, Igboland started and ended in SE. But since the knowledge that Nzeogwu was an Igbo from SS was made open to Yorubas, in a bid to ensure that the coup remains an Igbo coup, seeing as the coup can't be Igbo coup, if their theory of Igboland starting and ending in SE. remain intact, Yorubas have once again redefined Igboland to now include SE plus Enuani, just to accommodate Nzeogwu within the Igbo tag, and ensure the coup remain Igbo coup in their bigoted mind. Lol!

A neutral observer can't help but notice a similar pattern in this Igbo coup saga.

A pre determined conclusion of Igbo coup had been reached, then all sorts of evidence are made up along the way, and changed as the need arises, to support the already pre conceived conclusion of Igbo coup.
This is not a case of using evidence and observations to arrive at a conclusion, it's a case of an already established conclusions, and tinkering of observations and evidence to support the conclusion.

DiademSh07:

See another SS wanabe! No delta people call his/herself igbo, they rather say delta ibo.
I have a room mate that is ukwuani/kwale and she just laughed at your post.
She even said the word 'ukwuani' is not even an ibo to begin with.

Una come read this attaché by force guy comment to an Ukwuani calling himself igbo.

DiademSh07:

You mean Akoko Edo people are a mirage?
There's nothing ibo won't tell us on nairaland!
And are you talking of the same Asaba ibos that were massacred by Owa people of Anioma?
Bunch of wanderers!

Akoko Edo does not even consider themselves yoruba. Wtf is with you ppl attaché eeh?

This is the list of clans in there and their lands.

Igarra-Akuku which include Igarra, Akuku and Igbikutu ,Enwan clan which include Enwan Imiavane,Ososo Clan which include Ososo,North Akoko clan which include Ekpesa, Ibillo, Ikhiran-Ile, Ikhiran-Oke and Ekor,North East clan which include Imoga, Lampese, Ekpe and Bekuma,East Akoko Clan which include Somorika, Onumu, Ogbe, Anygaoza and EshawaCentral Akoko Clan which include Ayiyegunle, Igboola Sale, Igboola Oke and OgugunOkpe Clan which include Okpe, Jaja and OlomaImeri Clan which include ImeriAtte Clan which include Atte,Ekpeshi-Egbigele Clan which include Ikpeshi and EgbigeleUneme North Clan which include Uneme Nekhua and AkpamaUneme Central Clan which include Erhurun Uneme, Uneme Otsu and Ekpedo ImiavaUkuloso Clan which include Ojirami Oke, Makeke, Dagbala and Oja SaleKakumo-Anyanran Clan which include Kakumo, Aiyekoba and Anyanran

http://www.afemaipeople.com/akoko-edo-local-government-edo-state/

If you can point out yoruba in there for me. I'll owe you a cookie

Desperate attache. Really want to be from SS don't you? I don't blame you though. Who in their right mind would want to be from SW. It's alright, i get your pain. Ndooo

pazienza:


SW never played opposition willingly,circumstances beyond their control always forced them into opposition. Awo wanted to be at the centre, but got burnt by his treachery and was relegated to opposition, he really had no option, and still eyed the centre, hence he committed treason. He never hesitated the moment an opportunity to be at the centre was presented to him by Gowon, he grabbed it with both hands, even if it meant he was to bend to the North.

Tinubu has been in opposition for Years now, he was not there because he wanted to, situation forced him, and once he got the opportunity to be at the centre, even if it meant playing second fiddle to the North, he grabbed it fast.

Don't lecture me about SW opposition politics, as you can see, I know it all.


Awo treason and criminal case wasn't nonsense, he was tried in a court of law, and found guilty. The one who ruled on his case was a Yoruba judge, the one who wanted his political demise was Akintola, the one who wanted his head for trying to usurp his government was Balewa. But somehow, you want us to ignore them all, and hold Zik responsible, simply because Zik was Igbo. Are you for real? You mean Zik should upturn the ruling of a court of law and also defy Balewa and Akintola just to save Awo? Zik must have been a super Man to pull that off.

Awo greed and lust for power dug his grave for him, Zik simply allowed him lie in his grave in Peace. He did no wrong.

you can dance around the facts all you want. we know who went to aso rock at night and came back with a different tune the next day. and we know who has been trying to get in bed with the same north they claim to hate, floating parties and trying to get on the money bandwagon. say what you will, but the steadfastness of SW leaders in refusing to be bribed, even in the face of death is on record, and is the reason we are in the political position we are today. Actions show bravery, not empty words that can be shut down by ghana must go bags.

DiademSh07:

So the Edo, Urhobo, Isoko, Itshekiri, Ijaw and the whole of Anioma are ibos, huh?
If Edos, the Urhobo, Itshekiri, Isoko and ijaws part of Delta were part of the fight that led to the creation of the midwest, there's no reason why the Aniomas won't join them because Aniomas are also part of Delta!
But that doesn't mean the Ikas and Ukwuani part of Anioma are ibos. The earlier you incoporate that into your dull brain, the better!

educación has been wasted on u

P

DiademSh07:

See another SS wanabe! No delta people call his/herself igbo, they rather say delta ibo.
I have a room mate that is ukwuani/kwale and she just laughed at your post.
She even said the word 'ukwuani' is not even an ibo to begin with.

your roommate is a fool .. The word "ukwuani" is "ukwu" great and "Ani" is land.. Are these yellow bar words?

Nyerere, “Why We Recognised Biafra,” The Observer, London, 28 April 1968:

“Leaders of Tanzania have probably talked more about the need for African unity than those of any other country. Giving formal recognition to even greater disunity in Africa was therefore a very difficult decision to make. Our reluctance to do so was compounded by our understanding of the problems of unity - of which we have some experience - and of the problems of Nigeria. For we have had very good relations with the Federation of Nigeria, even to the extent that when we needed help from Africa we asked it of the Federation.

But unity can only be based on the general consent of the people involved. The people must feel that this state, or this nation, is theirs; and they must be willing to have their quarrels in that context. Once a large number of the people of any such political unit stop believing that the state is theirs, and that the government is their instrument, then the unit is no longer viable. It will not receive the loyalty of its citizens.

For the citizen’s duty to serve, and if necessary to die for, his country stems from the fact that it is his and that its government is the instrument of himself and his fellow citizens. The duty stems, in other words, from the common denominator of accepted statehood, and from the state government’s responsibility to protect all the citizens and serve them all. For states, and governments, exist for men and for the service of man. They exist for the citizens’ protection, their welfare, and the future well-being of their children. There is no other justification for states and governments except man.

In Nigeria this consciousness of a common citizenship was destroyed by the events of 1966, and in particular by the pogroms in which 30,000 Eastern Nigerians were murdered, many more injured, and about two million forced to flee from the North of their country. It is these pogroms, and the apparent inability or unwillingness of the authorities to protect the victims, which underlies the Easterners’ conviction that they have been rejected by other Nigerians and abandoned by the Federal Government.

Whether the Easterners are correct in their belief that they have been rejected is a matter for argument. But they do have this belief. And if they are wrong, they have to be convinced that they are wrong. They will not convinced by being shot. Nor will their acceptance as part of the Federation be demonstrated by the use of Federal power to bomb schools and hospitals in the areas to which people have fled from persecution.

In Britain, in 1950, the Stone of Scone was stolen from Westminster Abbey by Scottish Nationalists while I was still a student at Edinburgh. That act did not represent a wish by the majority of the Scottish people to govern themselves. But if, for some peculiar reason, that vast majority of the Scottish people decided that Scotland should secede from the United Kingdom, would the Government in London order the bombing of Edinburgh, and in pursuing the Scots into the Highlands, kill the civilians they overtook? Certainly the Union Government would not do this; it would argue with the Scots, and try to reach some compromise.

As President of Tanzania it is my duty to safeguard the integrity of the United Republic. But if the mass of the people of Zanzibar should, without external manipulation, and for some reason of their own, decide that the Union was prejudicial to their existence, I could not advocate bombing them into submission. To do so would not be to defend the Union. The Union would have ceased to exist when the consent of its constituent members was withdrawn. I would certainly be one of those working hard to prevent secession, or to reduce its disintegrating effects. But I could not support a war on the people whom I have sworn to serve - especially not if the secession is preceded by a rejection of Zanzibaris by Tanganyikans.

Similarly, if we had succeeded in the 1963 attempt to form an East African Federation, or if we should do so in the future, Tanzania would be overjoyed. But if at some time thereafter the vast majority of the people of any one of the countries should decide - and persist in a decision - to withdraw from the Federation, the other two countries could not wage war against the people who wished to secede. Such a decision would mark a failure by the Federation. That would be tragic; but it would not justify mass killings.

The Biafrans now feel that they cannot live under conditions of personal security in the present Nigerian Federation. As they were unable to achieve an agreement on a new form of association, they have therefore claimed the right to govern themselves. The Biafrans are not claiming the right to govern anyone else. They have not said that they must govern the Federation as the only way of protecting themselves. They have simply withdrawn their consent to the system under which they used to be governed.

Biafra is not now operating under the control of a democratic government, any more than Nigeria is. But the mass support for the establishment and defence of Biafra is obvious. This is not a case of a few leaders declaring secession for their own private glory. Indeed, by the Aburi Agreement the leaders of Biafra showed a greater reluctance to give up hope of some form of unity with Nigeria than the masses possessed. But the agreement was not implemented.

Tanzania would still like to see some form of co-operation or unity between all the peoples of Nigeria and Biafra. But whether this happens, to what extent, and in what fields, can only be decided by agreement among all the peoples involved. It is not for Tanzania to say.

We in this country believe that unity is vital for the future of Africa. But it must be a unity which serves the people, and which is freely determined upon by the people.

For 10 months we have accepted the Federal Government’s legal right to our support in a ‘police action to defend the integrity of the State.’ On that basis we have watched a civil war result in the death of about 100,000 people, and the employment of mercenaries by both sides. We have watched the Federal Government reject the advice of Africa to talk instead of demanding surrender before talks could begin. Everything combined gradually to force us to the conclusion that Nigerian unity did not exist.

Tanzania deeply regrets that the will for unity in Nigeria has been destroyed over the past two years. But we are convinced that Nigerian unity cannot be maintained by force any more than unity in East Africa could be created by one state conquering another.

It seemed to us that by refusing to recognise the existence of Biafra we were tacitly supporting a war against the people of Eastern Nigeria - and a war conducted in the name of unity. We could not continue doing this any longer.”

Reprinted in Godfrey Mwakikagile, "Nyerere and Africa: End of an Era," Fifth Edition,New Africa Press, Pretoria, South Africa, 2010, pp. 280 - 283.

Nyerere, "The Nigeria-Biafra Crisis"

“In arguments about the Nigeria/Biafra conflict, there has been a great deal of talk about the principles of national integrity and of self-determination; many analogies have been drawn with other conflicts in the world, and particularly in Africa; and finally, there has been a considerable amount of discussion about the role of the OAU and other international organizations in relation to the present conflict. It is my purpose to discuss some of these problems and to examine the lessons which are, and which I believe should be, drawn from the analogies.
Let me look first at the analogies and their relevance to the principles which are under discussion.


Gibraltar

The British give three reasons for their opposition to the demand for the incorporation of Gibraltar into the Spanish State. First is the Treaty of Utrecht 1713 - to which the Gibraltarians were not a party; second is the opposition of the Gibraltarians; and third is the dictatorship in Spain.
It is the second reason which Britain mostly uses to justify her position, and indeed it is the more important one. For if the Gibraltarians wished, they could say: "To hell with the Treaty of Utrecht: we were not a party to it anyway." If, after that, the territory were incorporated, Britain would not be able to do anything about it, unless she was to come out openly in favour of imperialism.
Yet I believe that Britain is simply using the fact of the Gibraltarians' opposition to incorporation, just as she is using the legalities of the Treaty. When Britain feels that it is in her interests to come to terms with Spain, I doubt that either the Treaty or the Gibraltarians' feelings will prevail - indeed this doubt is buttressed by the fact that Britain will not accept the "integration with Britain" policy. But this is not the point I want to argue.
My point is that two quite separate arguments are used by Britain in this dispute: one, an imperialist Treaty between several powers, including Britain and Spain; and two, the feelings of a group of people who were the object of that Treaty.
In the political climate of the modern world, the opposition of the Gibraltarians is the more important matter for winning world support for Britain's cause. But the Treaty argument also has an importance.
Look now at the analogy with the Nigeria/Biafra issue. Britain appears to be arguing that she is helping Nigeria to stop the Ibos from unilaterally breaking the "Treaty" under which all the peoples of Nigeria agreed to accept independence as a single Federation. In this case, in other words, she is leaving out the question of self-determination, although it is the main plank of her argument on the Gibraltar question.
But in the case of Nigeria and Biafra, the issue is not some minor, technical issue about the legalities or morality of a Treaty. It is an issue of life and death, involving a massacre by one party to that Treaty of more people among another party to the Treaty than all the inhabitants of Gibraltar. After the failure of several serious attempts to secure reassurance for the resultant fears, the People who had been the victims decided to break away to form their own State. If the principle of self-determination is relevant in the case of Gibraltar - as it is - then surely it is relevant under these circumstances? But the rest of Nigeria objects, and says: "These Ibos must remain part of Nigeria." Surely we should be saying to Nigeria: "Get their consent." Instead, what we are saying is: "Shoot and starve them into submission."
It may be argued that all those involved in a Treaty should be consulted about any change in it, and that therefore in this case the Nigerians should be consulted as well as the Biafrans. That is not actually my argument, but let us look at it in these two cases.
Consult the People of Spain about the incorporation of Gibraltar: I do not know what their verdict would be. Consult the People of Britain: they will vote against Spain - not because of the Treaty of Utrecht but because the Gibraltarians do not want to be part of Spain. They would vote, I hope - indeed I am sure - in support of the self-determination of the people of Gibraltar as it has been so freely expressed, not for Spain's claims.
Then ask the Nigerians about the forcible incorporation of the Ibos. At worst their answer would be equivalent to that of the Spanish Government, and of their own Government now: "Keep them part of Nigeria, even against their will." Ask the people of Britain about this issue: in this case I am not sure what their verdict might be, in spite of the clear determination of the 8 million Biafrans to be left alone. But neither is (British Prime Minister Harold) Wilson sure, so we shall never know.
What we do know is that the 29,000 Gibraltarians have been asked their opinion about the dispute in which they are involved, and they have given their answer. The 8 million Biafrans have not been asked, and will not be asked their opinion on their conflict; but they have given their answer nevertheless - with their blood.
Britain invokes the principle of self-determination in the case of Gibraltar, because it serves her interests to do so. She must justify her stand on some acceptable principle - international law, plus self-determination - because she still wants the Rock. Nevertheless, the principles she advances are valid. I am not going to say that they are not valid because they are advanced by Britain. In the case of Nigeria, Britain invokes a different principle - the principle of territorial integrity - because it suits her own interests to do so. The choice of principle is the result of a decision taken on the basis of British interests, not because one principle is more valid than another. If British interests had been different, we would have self-determination being advanced as a reason for supporting Biafra.
If the dictatorship of General Franco is an additional reason for supporting the Gibraltarians, one may rightly ask for similar consideration to be given to the people of Biafra. They object to incorporation because before secession 30,000 Easterners were massacred without anyone being punished; and the same regime threatens them with complete extermination through starvation unless they surrender. Are not such actions, and the attitudes they reveal, at least as good a reason as Franco's dictatorship for the Biafrans' opposition to being incorporated into Nigeria? Have the Gibraltarians so much reason to fear General Franco?


Reprinted in Godfrey Mwakikagile, Nyerere and Africa: End of an Era," pp. 296 - 309

Nyerere, "The Nigeria-Biafra Crisis":

The American Civil War

What, then, about the analogy which is sometimes drawn to the American Civil War?
Like the Nigerian Civil War, it was about secession. Like that in Nigeria it caused very dreadful suffering. But we do justify wars, or condemn them, because of what they are about. And in America, the South was not trying to break away because Southerners had been rejected in the North, and had been massacred in their thousands with the connivance or the assistance of the forces of law and order. The Southern States were not swarming with millions of refugees who had fled from the North, leaving their property behind, in order to save their skins. Of course it is true that Lincoln fought to save the Union. But he believed, even before the war, that the Union could not last half free, half slave. He was concerned to make it what it had proclaimed itself to be - a society of free and equal men. Had there been a Lincoln in Nigeria, he would have fought the prejudices which led to that inordinate and almost pathological hatred of the Ibos which made secession inevitable and justifiable.

Katanga as a Comparison

A politically more serious comparison, however, is made between the secession of Biafra and that of Katanga. Tanzania, in particular, is accused of the most blatant inconsistency because it opposed Katanga and recognizes Biafra. I know that there are similarities between Katanga and Biafra. But these similarities can be grouped into those which are superficial and irrelevant and those which are real and crucial. An examination of the real and crucial similarities reveals some apparently unnoticed facts.
First, let me acknowledge the similarities which are advanced by the opponents of Biafra, but which I believe to be superficial and irrelevant to the main issue. Katanga was part of a United Congo; Katanga decided to secede; the Centre objected; a war then broke out between secessionist Katanga and the Centre. (Notice that I am not trying to say "why" Katanga decided to secede; I am merely stating the fact of secession). Similarly, Biafra - or the Eastern Region of Nigeria - was part of a federated Nigeria; Biafra decided to secede; the Centre objected; (this is not quite correct, but I must admit a few similarities); a war broke out between secessionist Biafra and the Centre.
Now, for a different and more fundamental group of similarities. Katanga had vast copper resources; the former colonial power was very much interested in this vast amount of wealth; her economic interests were threatened by Lumumba at the Centre; when war broke out between Katanga and the Centre, Belgium supported one side in an effort to safeguard her economic interests; she joined the side supported by the copper companies. No need to go further.
Now, for the conflict in Nigeria. Biafra had vital oil resources; the former colonial power was vitally interested in this vast amount of oil; her interests were threatened in the conflict; (the really vital matter was the threat, not whether the threat came from the Centre or the periphery; this is only important in deciding who is going to be ally and who enemy); but in this case, due to relations between the British and the Ibos, the threat came from the secessionists. When war broke out between Biafra and the Centre, Britain, like Belgium, was on the same side as the Foreign Companies - in this case the Oil Companies.
Let those who love the superficial similarities of secession have the courage and honesty to accept this unpleasant fact also. In Katanga, Belgium and the Copper Companies were on one side; in Nigeria, Britain and the Oil Companies are on one side. This is the one constant and crucial factor in both cases, around which everything else can be variable. In both cases, the former colonial power and the vested economic interests are on one side.
Tshombe was a stooge of the Copper Interests. They filled his coffers with their vast financial resources. Ojukwu is not a stooge of these interests; they refuse to pay him a penny from the wealth they derive from Biafran oil. This vital contrast is the corollary to the decision to support the Centre instead of secession.
In the one case it was the Centre under Lumumba which was the threat to the economic interests if the Congo remained united; and therefore it was the Centre which had to be starved of Revenue. In the other case it was a separate Ibo state which was the threat, and it was Biafra, therefore, which had to be strangled. Is this really so difficult to see? Only great simplicity - or even extreme naivety - could lead anyone to accept that Britain is defending the unity of Nigeria, or African Unity in general. She is defending her own economic interests. That may be natural and even understandable, but it is as well that it should be understood and not camouflaged by talk of a particular principle.
The Netherlands decision to stop the supply of arms to Nigeria after the capture of Port Harcourt and its oil-rich surrounding areas is a reflection of her assessment that the oil supplies were then assured. But the British wish to be more certain. I am told that Britain expects to get 25 per cent of her oil supply from Nigeria by 1972. With her traditional Middle East suppliers being (in her view) unreliable, this is a very serious matter indeed for industrial Britain.
From Britain's point of view, what is vital is her oil interests; as she decides on her own policy, this is what the war is about. The Biafrans are fighting a most unequal war, and if they go on fighting, God alone knows what their end will be. Completely blockaded as they are, Nigeria no longer needs to shoot them into submission. Starvation and disease can fight for Nigeria, and Britain can go on explaining to the world that this is inevitable and justifiable because it is part of warfare.
Those who want peace before the Biafrans are wiped out must convince the British of one of two things. They have to be convinced that, in their present helpless position, the Biafrans are no longer a threat to British interests. And truly, the Biafrans know how weak they are; they are less interested in the oil than in their lives. This is the relatively easier thing to try and convince the British. The more difficult one is to try and convince Britain that her oil interests would be safe in an independent Biafra. But how could they know that Russia would not help Federal Nigeria to win total victory against the Biafrans? And if that happened, where would Britain be?
These are the vital issues, and those who are saying that the OAU can solve this problem are being fooled, or are conveniently fooling themselves. Britain is the vital force in this conflict; more important even than Federal Nigeria. The Biafrans believe they are fighting for their very survival; they are fighting to live in freedom and security. The Nigerian people are not quite sure what they are fighting for. Some of their leaders hate the Ibos; some may have ambitions of being Lincolns; some may even believe that they can force others into a United Nigeria and still have a meaningful nation. But that is all.
Without Britain's military and - in particular - her diplomatic support, the Nigerians would have no hope of winning against the Biafrans. The Soviet Union would not have been able to help them secure victory. Indeed, without Britain, the Soviet Union would have become a huge diplomatic embarrassment to the Nigerians; (and Nigeria would have become a wee embarrassment to Russia). For if Russia had supported Lagos and Britain did not, most of the Western world would have been anti-Lagos; and since there is so much popular sympathy for Biafra in many Western countries, it is hard to think of a reason which would have prevented Western Governments from supporting Biafra. After all, they would be fighting against communism.
Under these circumstances it would not have mattered whether African Heads of Government had continued to fear the effect of an example of successful secession; the Western powers, the only ones who have real power in Africa, would be fearing a different example, and one more vital to their own interests.
But if this argument is not convincing, those who believe that there is a direct and valid comparison between Katanga and Biafra must be able to answer some few questions.
Which tribe in Katanga is the equivalent of the Ibos? Azikiwe, an Ibo at the Centre, was trying hard, under very difficult circumstances, to co-operate with the dominant North to build a United Nigeria: who was his equivalent in the Congo? The Ibos, because of their education, industry, enterprise (and consequent arrogance?) were almost universally hated in Nigeria. Who in Katanga represented this educated, industrous, enterprising, arrogant and almost universally hated People? Who in the Congo represented the 30,000 massacred Easterners? Who in Katanga represented the 1.5 or 2 million refugees? What in the Congo represented the National Council for Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC), a party led mainly by Ibos it is true, but one which was nevertheless truly aimed at Nigerian Unity? Who in the Congo was the equivalent of the Sardauna of Sokoto, so powerful that he did not even bother to go to the Centre but governed the Federation through lieutenants while he himself governed the vital North? What in Katanga was the equivalent of the Northern People's Congress (NPC)?
Or again, who is Biafra's Tshombe? Who in Biafra represents the Copper Companies? Africa appealed to the United Nations to support Patrice Lumumba; why are we not appealing to the United Nations to support General Gowon, who in this analogy would be Nigeria's Lumumba? Perhaps the true answer is that it is not necessary; he already has strong support. But why is not necessary? Because the Ibos are simply fighting for their own survival and therefore have no strong supporter. That is their strength and weakness: it is the major difference between Katanga and Biafra.
In the one case, foreign economic interest was on the side of the secessionists and that made them very strong; in the other case, foreign economic interest is on the side of the Federalists, and makes them too very strong. They can even quote the OAU Charter on non-interference in the internal affairs of a member state. The devil can quote Scripture - when it suits him. In the one case, a despicable African stooge allowed himself to be used as a tool of foreign economic interests; in the other case, a brave African people are fighting against immense odds purely and simply for their own survival and their own self-respect and dignity. How does this analogy stand up to examination?
The break-up of Nigeria is a terrible thing. But it is less terrible than that cruel war. Thousands of people are being shot, bombed, or seeing their homes and livelihood destroyed; millions, including the children of Africa, are starving to death. (It is estimated that possibly more people have died in this war in the last two years (since 1967) than in Vietnam in the last ten years). We are told that nothing can be done about this. It is said that the sufferings of the Biafrans in the war are regrettable, but that starvation is a legitimate war weapon against an enemy. Yet by this statement you have said that these people, the Nigerians and the Biafrans, are enemies, just as Britons and Germans in Hitler's war were enemies.
If that is the case, is it rational to imagine that, once a Federal victory is obtained, they can immediately be equal members of one society, working together without fear? Or is the logic of being enemies not a logic which leads to conquest and domination when side is victorious?
We are told that Ojukwu should end the terrible sufferings of his people by surrender. We are told that he should reason thus: "The Nigerians are stronger than we are and they have stronger friends than we could ever hope to get. If we go on resisting, a combination of bombing, starvation and the inevitable epidemics, would exterminate us." Perhaps he should add, kindly: "Even if the Nigerians never intended to exterminate us." He should then convince the Biafran people about the wisdom of surrendering and then duly send the appropriate notice to the Nigerians. When the Federal Government gets this note, they presumably say: "At last you have come to your senses. As you rightly say, we never intended to exterminate you; but had you gone on resisting we would have continued the bombing and the blockade and the result would have been exactly the same as if we had intended to exterminate you." Perhaps they would add, kindly: "But, of course, the fault would have been yours." Then the Biafrans surrender and all is well.
Historically and logically, however, surrender on such terms as these - with the alternative being extermination - is for the purpose of creating empires. Surrender to an implacable enemy on his own terms, with the only condition being that you should not be killed, cannot lead to any kind of friendship, or even toleration. If it is a battalion which surrenders, the soldiers become prisoners-of-war; if it is a People, they become a colony, or an occupied territory, or something like that. Those who surrender cannot become an integral part of the conqueror's territory because they did not do so of their own free will; they did so as the only alternative to death."

Reprinted in Godfrey Mwakikagile, "Nyerere and Africa: End of an Era," pp. 299 - 303.

Nyerere, "The Nigeria-Biafra Crisis":

"The Internal Domino Theory

The argument is being advanced that if Biafra is allowed to exist, Nigeria cannot exist. Nigerian leaders themselves have advanced this argument. If the Ibos are allowed to go, so the argument runs, Nigeria will break up completely, for the others will also go.
To deal with this argument seriously, let us assume the worst: let us assume that, if the Biafrans leave the Federation, all the others will also secede and set themselves up as separate States. What this argument amounts to is that only two things bind the Hausa and the Yorubas (these being the major elements) together. These two facts are, firstly, the recent historical accident that all (plus the Ibos) were conquered by, and then governed by, the British; and secondly, the more recent historical fact that, when the British left, they left these Peoples as one Nation.
If these accidents of history were in fact the only reason for Nigeria, and if there is no feeling of mutual benefit arising from the political unity, then the secession of the Biafrans would certainly and inevitably lead to the break-up of the Federation as the Yorubas - and the Hausas? - secede. In using this argument, therefore, we are in effect saying: "The Yorubas, the Hausas (and the others) cannot remain together without the Ibos; we want the Yorubas and the Hausas to remain together; therefore we must forcibly prevent the Ibos from breaking away - even if this attempt to prevent them, together with their stubborn resistance, may lead to their extermination."
This is an extremely logical and nice argument. But it must be directed to people other than the Biafrans. They cannot be asked to sacrifice their freedom in order that two Peoples, who are not otherwise willing to attempt the building of a nation together, may carry on a precarious united existence. It is bad enough to force the Biafrans to make immense sacrifices for their own freedom; it would be worse than absurd to expect them to surrender the freedom for which they are dying in order to maintain a precarious unity among other Peoples - whose own commitment to that unity must be very slight if this argument has any validity at all.
In fact, the argument "If you allow the Ibos to go, the others will also go," inevitably provokes the question: "Who are these others, and where will they go?" For properly considered, this argument is an Imperialist argument. I can well imagine Winston Churchill saying: "If I allow India to go, the others will go, and I was not appointed the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire." But how can this kind of thing be said of Nigeria - most all by Nigerians? Who in the Nigerian issue represents Churchill? And who represents the "Others" who would break away if the Ibos are allowed to go? And who is the imperialist metropolitan power in Nigeria?
Those who advance this argument assume the Hausas to be the Churchill and the "others" to be the Yorubas in particular, and also the smaller groups. They assume that the Hausas would like to complete their conquest of the South, which was interrupted by the British, and are saying that the only way the Hausas will be able to continue to dominate the Yorubas and the smaller ethnic groups is if they succeed in dominating the Ibos.
If this is the basis of the argument, and if it stated the actual position, I would be amazed at Africa's reaction to an African Imperialism abetted and supported by British Imperialism. Indeed, it would be very shameful if Africa, which is still groaning from the yoke of European Imperialism, was to make a cynical distinction between that and an internal African Imperialism. Such an argument must be rejected by the whole of Africa. Not only would it make nonsense of the principles we have been proclaiming; it is also an insult to the people of Nigeria - the Hausas, the Yorubas, and the others.
Let us reject the Internal Domino Theory in relation to the Nigerian question. For it assumes that the people now in the Federation of Nigeria are, and wish to be, imperialists. I cannot believe that.
I still believe that they are capable of recognizing the tragedy which has caused one part of the Federation to break away, and of acknowledging that very different tactics are necessary if the old Nigeria is ever to re-created. For surely they could decide to leave the Biafrans to go their own way and, by the kind of Nigeria which they create, to show the Biafrans what they are losing by remaining separated from their brethren. For if the other peoples of Nigeria decide to work together, they will continue to be a strong and powerful force in Africa; they really have the opportunity to build a good nation of which every Nigerian - indeed every African - can be proud. Then it may be that at some time in the future the Biafrans will wish to rejoin the peoples from whom they now wish to part; if this happens, it will be the accession of a free people to a large and free political unit. For if the secession of Biafra is a setback to African Unity - as of course it is - no one is suggesting that we should consequently stop working for African Unity on the basis of willing commitment.
Why then are we suggesting that our Nigerian brethren have a different conception of unity, and that they want a unity of conquest only? I am not making such an argument: I am saying that, although our Nigerian brothers want to maintain one Nigeria, including Biafra, on the basis of equality of citizenship, they are wrong in thinking that this can be done now. I refuse to impute bad motives to General Gowon; I believe he is mistaken in his judgment and that Africa must not make the same mistake.

The African Domino Theory

There is another Domino Theory which relates to the rest of Africa. We are told that, if we allow "tribalism" to break up Nigeria, no African country would be safe; for every African nation consists of tribes which find themselves in the same country by an accident of history and by the grace of the Imperialists. I fully accept the danger of tribalism in Africa. When we started TANU (Tanganyika African National Union) in 1954, the first of the objectives of our Party was preparation for independence, and the second was "to fight against tribalism." We have not completely succeeded in eradicating tribalism from our society; indeed I was recently forced to remind our people of this objective, and to warn them about certain tendencies.
But the dangers of tribalism are so well-known that, although I would never wish to minimize them, I do not think it is now necessary to expound them afresh. There is, however, a different fact which can be equally dangerous. Sometimes, indeed very often, the spectre of tribalism is raised by the enemies of Africa against Africa. It is dangerous for Africa to accept the argument of tribalism without examining its relevance in every given case. Indeed to the extent that we need to learn from Nigeria's "tribalism,' I have a feeling that Africa is being bamboozled or mesmerized into learning the wrong lesson.
But first, what is a Tribe? And how comparable is Nigeria's position to that which exists elsewhere in Africa? Are the Hausas a tribe? Are the Yorubas a tribe? Are the Ibos a tribe? It may be said that they are not "Nations"; but are they Tribes? There are Scottish clans, but the Scots are not a Tribe simply because of the fact that they are not a Nation. The Welsh: are they a Tribe? Are the Protestants of Northern Ireland a tribe? The Hausas, the Ibos, and the Yorubas, are not Nations in the legal sense; but they are not Tribes either. Each one of them is a "People" which could easily become a very coherent Nation. Each one of these "Peoples" of Nigeria has a better chance of forming a really viable and stable Nation than many of the legal Nations of Africa and other parts of the world.
Indeed, those who glibly compare Nigeria with other African countries show that they did not begin to understand the immense significance for the rest of Africa of the Nigerian experiment. Nigeria was trying (and if they do not allow themselves to be convinced by the internal Nigerian Domino Theory, they may continue trying) to build a Nation which incorporates several Peoples who could have become Nations on their own.
Had Nigeria succeeded (and Nigeria can still succeed if she rejects the argument of all or none), Africa would have a great example before it. We would be able to say: "Within Nigeria there are several Peoples, each conscious of itself and conscious of its ability to be a Nation on its own. If they have nevertheless succeeded in submerging their natural unity into a larger artificial unity, for the greater benefit of them all, then the rest of Africa can submerge its smaller artificial units into that greater artificiality (indeed that more natural unit of all Africa) which holds greater promise for all the peoples of Africa." In other words, any success in Nigeria - even if partial - is a demonstration of the practicability of our declared aim of African Unity - even though a Nigerian failure would not make this aim impossible of achievement. This, I repeat, is Nigeria's real significance to Africa.
No other political unit in our continent has the same significance for Africa; not even the Sudan, although the two cases are similar in one respect. Both have a basic problem of "Peoples" in the sense that the North of Sudan is different from the South, racially, religiously, culturally, and socially - although the one "People" of the South are divided into several different tribes. The Sudan's problem, therefore, is very serious - just as Nigeria's problem is.
But fortunately for Sudan, and for Africa, Southern Sudan is not blessed (or cursed) with immense mineral wealth. As a result, foreign economic interests are not involved in this conflict (until years later when oil was discovered in significant quantities in the South after Nyerere wrote this pamphlet).
However agonising the problem may be for the authorities in Khartoum - and for the people of the country - the former Colonial Power is most unlikely to pour arms into the Sudan to help maintain Sudanese unity. It is also unlikely to intervene in support of any attempt at secession. This situation will continue irrespective of the ideological leanings of the Government in Khartoum, and irrespective of what Russia does. In this case Sudanese leaders, and African leaders, have a real chance of solving the problem provided we do not make the same mistake as we made in Nigeria and act as if there is no genuine problem to be solved.
The solution, as the present Government in the Sudan has rightly foreseen, lies in a constitution which recognizes both the unity of the Sudan, and the legitimate interests of the South. This is what Eastern Nigeria was asking for before it seceded; this is what the Aburi Agreement was all about. It was the refusal, by Lagos, to accept this necessity that finally led to secession and the present situation.
The fact is that the Peoples of Nigeria have less in common, historically, linguistically, culturally, and as regards religion, than the Peoples of Scandinavia. The only thing that the Peoples of Nigeria hve in common is that they are all Africans and all have been under British rule for a few decades - and Britain governed them virtually separately.
It would be infinitely easier for the Peoples of Scandinavia to form one nation than for the Peoples of Nigeria. Those who do not see this do not understand Nigeria's significance for Africa.
One final point must be made about this tragedy. In spite of attempts on both sides of the quarrel to bring in religion, the conflict between Nigeria and Biafra is not a religious one. Yet if it were, that would be simply an additional complication: it would not justify the war. In fact, however, there are Christians and Muslims on both sides: religion cuts across the divisions between the Peoples.

The True Lesson for Africa

I said earlier that Africa is learning the wrong lesson from the Nigerian tragedy. We are saying that if Biafra is allowed to secede, every country in Africa is going to have its own Biafra. But what we are doing is looking at results without looking at the cause of those results, and then saying that the same results will happen elsewhere without there having been any causes. That is nonsense. But there is a very serious lesson to be learned from the present tragedy.
We should learn that where in any African state there is a dominant group, whether that group is ethnic, religious or otherwise, it must wield its power and influence on behalf of all the elements which go to form that country. In particular, it should be very solicitous of the interests of the minorities, because they are the ones which need the protection of the State. If a dominant group does not act in this protective manner, then civil strife and consequent Biafras become inevitable. That is the lesson Africa should learn from the Nigerian tragedy.
We African leaders had a golden opportunity at the OAU Summit Conference in Kinshasa (in September 1967), but we missed it because we were confused by the tribal domino theory. At that time the whole of Africa, including those countries which now recognize Biafra, supported the territorial integrity of Nigeria. Yet I believe that all States had some sympathy for the Easterners, who had already experienced a massacre of some 30,000 of their brethren, and who were trying to absorb nearly 2 million refugees in the Eastern Region.
Previous to secession the Ibos were simply asking for a loosening of the constitutional structure so as to maintain the Unity of Nigeria and still meet the understandable fears of the Peoples from that Region. Africa should have accepted the legitimacy of this demand. Since we were all supporting Nigeria in its main objective of maintaining national unity, we should have used our moral strength to urge Nigeria to listen to those demands. We should have pointed out that under the circumstances of the two coups and the massacres, what they were asking for was not only understandable but was also justifiable. Since we were supporting the Nigerian authorities in their efforts to keep Nigeria one, and since by that support we were rejecting any claim by the East to secede, we were in a very strong position. We did not have to worry about Domino Theories and the Charter of the OAU. But we were so obsessed, bewitched and terrified by the Domino Theory that we did not dare raise a voice for the Ibos even when we all supported the Federal Authority.
That opportunity was lost. But we must not therefore even appear to acquiesce in the present situation of war and suffering. The least we can do is now ask our brethren in both Nigeria and Biafra to stop fighting and to begin talking about their future relations. It is being said that the situation has changed from what it was two years ago, and that Biafrans need no longer fear for their future. If that is the case, we should ask Nigeria to convince the Biafrans of it at a conference table. You cannot convince people that they are safe while you are shooting and starving them.
The OAU was established by the Heads of African States. But it is intended to serve the Peoples of Africa. The OAU is not a trade union of African Heads of State. Therefore, if it is to retain the respect and support of the People of Africa, it must be concerned about the lives of the People of Africa. We must not just concern ourselves with our own survival as Heads of State; we must even be more concerned about peace and justice in Africa than we are about the sanctity of the boundaries we inherited. For the importance of these lies in the fact that their acceptance is the basis for peace and justice in our continent, and we all have a responsibility to the whole people of Africa in this regard.
Many African Governments, some of them very good governments, have been overthrown through coups. Some countries have had more than one coup; but none of them has broken up. Only the Nigerian Federation is in danger, and this from the effects of a failure to meet the legitimate interests of the Easterners, not directly because of the coups. And the fall of African Governments, however regrettable, is not the same thing as the disintegration of African countries. we must not be like the French monarch who said: "L'etat c'est Moi" - "I am the State." The OAU must sometimes raise a voice against those regimes in Africa, including independent Africa, who oppress the Peoples of Africa. In some countries in Africa it might be the only voice that can speak on behalf of the people. If we dare not do that, even in private, we shall deserve the scorn of those who accuse us of double standards.
In this connection we could learn a good lesson from our former masters. For European Governments are not often very polite to European regimes which fail to show respect for basic human rights within their own countries. Europeans do care about what happens to Europeans. (Sometimes, as in the case of Stanleyville, we are reminded of that fact rather unpleasantly). I think that is a lesson worth learning.
Thus, for example, European Governments do not invade Greece, for they respect the territorial integrity of fellow European States; but they have not left, and will not leave, the Greek regime in any doubt at all about what they think of it. Yet what have the Greek Colonels done? They have carried out a military coup against a constitutionally established government, and are detaining and persecuting the supporters of the constitution - an occurrence so familiar in young Africa that is hardly considered wrong anymore.
If we do not learn to criticise injustice within our continent, we will soon be tolerating fascism in Africa, as long as it is practised by African Governments against African Peoples. Consider what our reaction would have been if the 30,000 Ibos had been massacred by whites in Rhodesia or South Africa. One can imagine the outcry from Africa. Yet these people are still dead; the colour of those who killed them is irrelevant. We must ask Nigeria to stop more killing now, and to deal with the problem by argument, not death.
Justice is indivisible. Africa, the OAU, must act accordingly.”

reprinted in Godfrey Mwakikagile, "Nyerere and Africa: End of an Era," pp. 303 - 309.