This opinion is written by Innocent Obiora, who wrote from New Jersey. I decided to publish it verbatim for its historical purpose and given the fact that we had learnt nothing from the past. If we have learnt anything from the horrors of war, we will not be toying with another potential war, particularly having the understanding that the colonial interest of the West in Africa is their economic interest. It is in their post-colonial interest that Africa is at war because a stable post-independent Africa will deny them access to our rich natural resources of the continent, which they badly need to keep their economy alive. You wonder why Nigeria is having undeclared war in the North East, North West and North Central Nigeria, why almost the entire Sahel is at war with Jihadists. What is the France connection with these crises and why? The neo-colonial mindset of the West is not about civilising Africa but about looting Africa’s natural mineral resources.
This is not to say that Africa is the only target of this madness of war. The world as we know it is in turmoil. Again, India and Pakistan are at each other’s throats. In Europe, Ukraine and Russia have been fighting for the past three years, and it does not appear the war will end anytime soon due to the enormous hatred the two leaders have for each other. Syria is still at war. The Middle East is at war with Israel. For the first time, the Palestinian leaders and Lebanese government are having a reality check, calling out the instigators by their deserved names: Sons of Dogs.
In Africa, Somalia, Sudan and Congo, people are killing each other over the control of their vast resources. The source of arms in all these conflicts is from the West.
The Biafran War, fought between 1967 and 1970, was a brutal and devastating conflict that resulted in the deaths of up to three million people. It remains Africa’s most ruthless war. The war was sparked by the South-Eastern region of Nigeria, predominantly inhabited by the Igbo people, declaring independence as the Republic of Biafra. The Nigerian federal government, led by General Yakubu Gowon, responded with force, determined to maintain the country’s unity.
During the war, the British government, led by Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson, secretly armed and backed the Nigerian federal government. Declassified government documents reveal that Britain’s primary motivation for supporting Nigeria was to protect its significant oil interests in the region. Shell-BP, a joint company partly owned by the British government, had substantial investments in Nigeria, particularly in the eastern region, which was rich in oil.
The British government’s support for Nigeria was not limited to diplomatic backing. Britain supplied large quantities of arms to Nigeria, including millions of rounds of ammunition, hundreds of machine guns and grenades, thousands of mortar and artillery bombs, aircraft, and armoured personnel carriers. These supplies were massively stepped up while Wilson was telling parliament that Britain was supplying arms to Nigeria at the same level as before.
The British government’s decision to supply arms to Nigeria was taken despite knowing that they were being used against civilians. The Nigerian government’s blockade of Biafra led to severe starvation and humanitarian suffering, with pictures of starving and malnourished children going around the world. The British government’s support for Nigeria was maintained despite widespread public and parliamentary pressure to halt arms exports to Nigeria.
The British government’s policy was shaped by its desire to protect its oil interests and investments in Nigeria. The government believed that a federal military victory would provide the best hope for an early end to the fighting and would allow British oil companies to re-establish and expand their activities in Nigeria. The British government’s prioritisation of its economic interests over humanitarian concerns had devastating consequences for the people of Biafra.
The war was marked by widespread human rights abuses, including indiscriminate air strikes, massacres, and blockades that led to severe starvation and humanitarian suffering. The Nigerian government’s forces were accused of committing atrocities against civilians, including the massacre of Ibo males in the town of Asaba. The British government’s support for Nigeria was maintained despite knowing about these atrocities.
The British government’s disinformation campaign was also a key aspect of its policy. The government told parliament that Britain was supplying arms to Nigeria on the same basis as before the war, while secretly stepping up supplies. The government also engaged in a propaganda campaign to counter widespread public opposition to the Nigerian government. British officials urged the Nigerian government to convince the outside world that it was not engaged in genocide and to suggest it backed a ceasefire and humanitarian access to Biafra, whereas this wasn’t true.
The war finally ended in January 1970, with the Nigerian government crushing the Biafran secessionists. The toll of the war was devastating, with up to two million people dead, and many more displaced while suffering from hunger and disease. The British government’s support for Nigeria during the Biafran War raises important questions about the role of economic interests in shaping foreign policy.
The legacy of the Biafran War continues to be felt today. The war had a profound impact on the people of Nigeria and the region, and its effects are still being felt in the ongoing struggles of the Igbo people for recognition and justice. The British government’s role in the war is also a reminder of the complex and often fraught nature of international relations. The Igbo of the South East still nurse the feelings that the British hate them and want them enslaved in Nigeria. The British government has not helped matters even in the current time. Almost all her interventions and aids target the North and South West at the expense of the South East. The British at a time established a Consular Office in Enugu, the capital of the South East region, only to have it closed down for no very plausible reasons. That the British is not doing enough to ease the frosty relationship with the Igbo even after the war continues to create tension.
In conclusion, the declassified documents reveal a shocking story of British complicity in the Biafran War. The Wilson government’s secret arms supplies and covert military assistance to Nigeria, despite knowing the devastating consequences for the people of Biafra, is a stark reminder of the brutal nature of realpolitik. The British government’s prioritisation of its economic interests over humanitarian concerns is a lesson that should not be forgotten.
The Biafran War is a reminder of the importance of considering the human cost of foreign policy decisions. The British government’s actions during the war had devastating consequences for the people of Biafra, and its legacy continues to be felt today. As we reflect on the Biafran War, it is essential to consider the lessons of history and to prioritise human rights and humanitarian concerns in our foreign policy decisions.
The role of oil in the Biafran War cannot be overstated. The British government’s desire to protect its oil interests in Nigeria was a key driver of its policy during the war. The war highlights the complex and often fraught nature of international relations, particularly when it comes to natural resources.
The Biafran War also raises important questions about the role of governments in protecting human rights. The British government’s prioritisation of its economic interests over humanitarian concerns had devastating consequences for the people of Biafra. The war highlights the need for governments to prioritise human rights and humanitarian concerns in their foreign policy decisions. In the end, the Biafran War was a tragic and devastating conflict that ought not to have occurred.