Second, the eastern leadership was spared when others were brutally wasted. Third, the head of state Major-General Aguyi-Ironsi, an Igbo, didn’t try and execute the coup plotters as was the practice if it were a pure military affair. (Ojukwu told Suzanne Cronje, the British-South African author that he asked Aguyi-Ironsi to take over and told him how to unite the army behind him. That was the reason he made him the governor of Eastern Region.) Four, when Awolowo, Bola Ige, Anthony Enahoro, Lateef Jakande, etc were imprisoned for sedition, they served their terms in Calabar away from their regions as was the normal practice. When Wole Soyinka was imprisoned for activities at the beginning of the civil war, he was sent to faraway Kaduna and Jos prisons but the ring leaders of coup plotters were moved from Lagos back to the Eastern Region, among their people on the advice of Ojukwu. Five, during the Aburi negotiations, why was full reprieve for the coup plotters put on the table? Six, a freed Nzeogwu by April 1967 before the secession joined in training recruits in Abakaliki for the inevitable war with Nigeria. He later died on the Nsukka front fighting for Biafra. Yet that was Achebe’s Hausa-speaking, kaftan-wearing Kaduna man, who is Igbo in name only. It was an Igbo coup. (The same repackaging was attempted for the invasion and occupation of the Midwest. It was called liberation of the Midwest from Hausa-Fulani domination when it was simply another Igbo coup for Igbo ends planned in Enugu albeit headed by a Yoruba, Colonel Victor Banjo)
The January coup didn’t foment a much more viscera response in Western Region since their assassinated political leader was part of the corrupt, troublesome, election-rigging class. To Westerners, the coup was good riddance to bad rubbish. However to the Northerners who were feudal in their social organization and Hobbesian in their consciousness, it was different matter. Sir Ahmadu Bello, the slain Sardauna of Sokoto was their all in all; he was the heir to the powerful Sokoto Caliphate and descendant of Usman dan Fodio. More than Azikiwe and Awolowo, Sardauna was the most powerful politician in Nigeria (pg 46). Murdering him was murdering the pride of a people. Achebe chooses to ignore this perspective and more importantly was the fact that Igbos in the North were widely taunting their hosts on the loss of their leaders with Rex Lawson’s song “Ewu Ne Ba Akwa” (Goats are crying) and others celebrating “Igbo power”, the “January Victory.” Posters, stickers, postcards, cartoons displaying the murdered Sardauna begging Nzeogwu at the gates of heaven or Balewa burning outright in pits of hell, or Nzeogwu standing St George-like on Sardauna the defeated dragon began to show up across Northern towns and cities. These provocations were so pervasive that they warranted the promulgation of Decree 40 of 1966 banning them. The Igbos didn’t stop. Azikiwe is more honest than Achebe. In his pamphlet, The Origins of the Civil War, he writes: “…some Ibo elements who were domiciled in Northern Nigeria taunted Northerners by defaming their leaders through means of records or songs or pictures. They also published pamphlets and postcards which displayed a peculiar representation of certain Northerners, living or dead, in a manner likely to provoke disaffection.” It was these images and songs that eventually led to the so-called pogroms/ethnic-cleansing/genocide not the coup. The coup was in January, the pogroms started late in May, and the provocations were in between.
However Igbos in the East did not sit idly by. They started the massacre of innocent Northerners in their midst. Achebe chose to ignore this account since it doesn’t serve his agenda so we return to Azikiwe: “Between August and September 1966, either by chance or by design, hundreds of Hausa, Fulani, Nupe and Igalla-speaking peoples of Northern Nigeria origin residing in the Eastern Nigeria were abducted and massacred in Aba, Abakaliki, Enugu, Onitsha and Port Harcourt.” It is important to note that these Northerners never published nor circulated irreverent or taunting pictures of Eastern leaders unlike the Igbos of the North, they were just massacred for being Northerners. The government of Eastern Region did not stop these massacres. Neither did the Igbo intellectuals. Ojukwu, the military administrator even made a radio broadcast saying that he can no longer guarantee the security of non-Eastern Nigerians in the East, Easterners who did not return to Igboland would be looked on as traitors. This was when Professor Sam Aluko who was the head of Economics department at University of Nigeria, Nsukka and a personal friend of Ojukwu fled back to the West. Azikiwe continues in his book: “Eyewitnesses gave on-the-spot accounts of corpses floating in the Imo River and River Niger. [Faraway]Radio Cotonou broadcast this macabre news, which was suppressed by Enugu Radio. Then Radio Kaduna relayed it and this sparked off the massacres of September – October 1966 [in the North]”.
Achebe, like Enugu Radio, suppressed this information and goes on to pivot the ‘pogrom’ on the fact that Igbos were resented because they were the most superior, most successful tribe in the country. He claims they were “the dominant tribe(pg 233)” “led the nation in virtually every sector – politics, education, commerce, and the arts(pg 66),” which included having two vice chancellors in Yoruba land; they the Igbos are the folkloric “leopard, the wise and peaceful king of the animals (pg177),” they “spearheaded”(pg 97) the struggle to free Nigeria from colonial rule: “This group, the Igbo, that gave the colonizing British so many headaches and then literarily drove them out of Nigeria was now an open target, scapegoats for the failings and grievances of colonial and post-independent Nigeria(pg 67).” An Igboman, Achebe writes, has “an unquestioned advantage over his compatriots…Unlike the Hausa/Fulani he was unhindered by a wary religion, and unlike the Yoruba he was unhampered by traditional hierarchies…Although the Yoruba had a huge historical head start, the Igbo wiped out their handicap in one fantastic burst of energy in the twenty years between1930 to1950 (pg 74).” Beside the fact that this has a language consistent with white supremacist literature, Achebe, to demonstrate he is not partial or a chauvinist, based himself on a 17 page report by Paul Anber in Journal of Modern African Studies entitled “Modernisation and Political Disintegration: Nigeria and the Ibos.”
I looked up the 1967 journal. Curiously this ‘scholar’ was designated as “a member of staff of one the Nigerian Universities.” Why would a scholar hide his place of work in a journal? I checked the essays and book reviews in all the 196 issues of Journal of Modern African Studies from Volume 1 issue 1 of January 1963 to the last issue Volume 49 November 2011, there was nowhere a piece was published and the designation of the scholar vague or hidden. Also this Paul Anber never published any piece before and after this article in this or any other journal. I wanted to start checking the academic staff list of the five universities in Nigeria then until I realized again that it says “he is a staff of Nigerian university;” I would have to check the names of janitors and cleaners, and other non-academic staff too. The truth is Paul Anber is a fake name under which someone else or a group of people possibly Igbo is masquerading. And he/they never used this name again for any other piece or books. So that this ruse would not be found out was the reason he/they hid his/their university. And this piece like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been the cornerstone of books and widely quoted by other journals over a period 45 years. It is the cornerstone of the chapter A History Of Ethnic Tension And Resentment which Achebe used to skew the motive for Igbo people’s maltreatment from the fallout of January 1966 coup and the inflammatory provocations they published to resentment for being allegedly the most successful and dominant tribe in Nigeria.
Had Achebe not been overdosing on rabid Igbo nationalism, he would have had his chest-beating ethnic bombasts inflected by a deeper and more sobering analysis of the Nigerian situation in the next essay in the Journal, “The Inevitability of Instability” by a real and existing Professor James O’Connell, an Irish priest and professor of government in a real and existing institution: Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. O’ Connell argues that the lack of constitutionalism and disregard for rule of law fuel psychology of insecurities in all ethnic groups. He fingers as an inevitable cause of our national instability, Nigerians’ “failure to find an identity and loyalty beyond their primordial communities that lead them constantly to choose their fellow workers, political and administrative, from the same community, ignoring considerations of merit.”
The symbolism of Igbos heading the University of Ibadan and University of Lagos both in Yoruba land was a positive image to assist Tiv, Hausa, Ijaw, Urhobo, Yoruba, Ibibio, Igbo, Efik, etc students shed their over-loyalty to their respective primordial communities and to fashion a higher sense of identity that is national in character and federal in outlook. To Achebe, the symbolism was an example of the dominance and superiority of Igbos. “It would appear that the God of Africa has created the Ibo nation to lead the children of Africa from the bondage of ages,” Paul Anber quotes Azikiwe saying in his West African Pilot, “History has enabled them not only to conquer others but also to adapt themselves to the role of preserver… The Ibo nation cannot shirk its responsibility.” Anber says in his/their essay: “The Ibo reaction to the British was not typically one of complete rejection and resistance, though Ibos were militantly anti-colonial. Since modernisation is in many respects basically a process of imitation, the Ibos modelled themselves after their masters, seeing, as Simon Ottenberg put it, that ‘The task was not merely to control the British influence but to capture it.’ To some degree, it may be said that this is precisely what they proceeded to do. Faced with internal problems of land hunger, impoverished soil, and population pressure, the Ibos migrated in large numbers to urban areas both in their own region and in the North and West…”
The spirit of inclusive humanism, the Martin Luther King Ideal, the Mandela Example, the conscience of a writer should necessitate that if a child in Sokoto goes to bed hungry someone in Umuahia should get angry. If a pregnant woman in Kotangora needs justice someone in Patani should be able to stand up and fight for her. If an Osu group is being maltreated in Igboland, someone in Zaria should stand up and defend them. But to Achebe, there should be no mercy for the weak in so far as he or she is unfortunate enough to belong to the other side. Take for instance the butchering of the lone shell-shocked “Mali-Chad mercenary” wandering around “dazed and aimless” in the bush Achebe witnessed. To show the fight-to-finish courage of his people in face of overwhelming force, he describes how Major Jonathan Uchendu’s Abagana Ambush succeeded in destroying Colonel Murtala Mohammed’s convoy of 96 vehicles, four armoured vehicle killing 500 Nigerians in one and a half hours. “There were widespread reports of atrocities perpetrated by angry Igbo villagers who captured wandering soldiers. I was an eyewitness to one such angry bloody frenzy of retaliation after a particularly tall and lanky soldier – clearly a mercenary from Chad or Mali wandered into an ambush of young men with machetes. His lifeless body was found mutilated on the roadside in a matter of seconds (pg 173).”
Achebe does not tell us if he tried to prevent this cold-blooded butchering even though there was an episode where he intervened to save the life and chastity of a Biafran woman arguing with some wandering Nigerian soldiers who wanted to requisition her goat for food (pg 201). If Achebe couldn’t intervene in the butchering, what did he think of the killing then or now that he is writing the book with the benefit of hindsight? Shouldn’t the man have been handed over as a prisoner of war? Was his killing not a violation of Geneva conventions which he so much accused the Nigerian side of disrespecting (pg 212)? Did villagers behaving this way not rebus sic stantibus blur the lines between soldiers and civilians hence making themselves fair game in war? Also notice how Achebe starts the narration with an active first person voice: “I was an eye witness to…” and how he quickly switches to a passive third person voice in the next sentence: “His body was found…” Achebe quickly goes AWOL “in a matter of seconds” leaving a moral vacuum for the Igbo writer to emerge and the conscientious writer to go under.
When atrocities are being committed against Biafrans, Achebe deploys strong active voice (subject + verb), isolates the aggressive phrases of military bravado with italics or quotation marks. But when Biafra is caught committing the atrocity, he employs passive sentence structures, euphemisms and never isolates pledges of murder in italics or quotation marks. Take the “Kwale Incident(pg 218)” that eventually became an international embarrassment for Biafra. Based on an unsubstantiated source, he writes, “Biafran military intelligence allegedly obtained information that foreign oilmen…were allegedly providing sensitive military information to federal forces – about Biafran troop positions, strategic military manoeuvres, and training.” So they decided to invade. “At the end of the ‘exercise’,” Achebe writes, “eleven workers had been killed”
Also compare these two accounts: the background is the Biafran invasion of Midwest. Despite Ojukwu’s assurance to them before the secession that he would absolutely respect their choice of belonging to neither side, he invaded them, occupied their land, foisted his government on them, took charge of their resources, looted the Central Bank of Nigeria in Benin, set up military check points in several places to regulate the flow of goods and human beings, imposed dawn-to-dusk curfews, flooded the airwaves with Biafran propaganda, imprisoned and executed dissidents on a daily basis according to Nowa Omoigui’s The Invasion of Midwest and Samuel Ogbemudia’s Years of Challenge. In fact, “The Hausa community in the Lagos street area of Benin and other parts of the state were targeted for particularly savage treatment, in part a reprisal for the pogroms of 1966, but also out of security concerns that they would naturally harbour sympathies for the regime in Lagos,” Omoigui writes. The Midwesterners regarded Biafrans as traitors. And the Nigerian army came to the rescue.
Achebe writes: “The retreating Biafran forces, according to several accounts, allegedly beat up a number of Mid-Westerners who they believed had served as saboteurs. Nigerian radio reports claimed that the Biafrans shot a number of innocent civilians as they fled the advancing federal forces. As disturbing as these allegations are, I have found no credible corroboration of them (pg 133).” Yes, he can’t find it; they were not his people. Also note his euphemisms: “allegedly beat up”… “shot a number of innocent civilians”(shot not killed). He writes: “a number of innocents” to disguise the fact that massacres took place. He also writes: “saboteurs.” Midwesterners collaborated with federal forces to liberate their lands from Biafran traitors and occupiers, Achebe calls them “saboteurs.” Now note in the next paragraph how he describes what happened to his people when the federal army in hot pursuance of the Biafran soldiers reached the Igbo side of the Midwest. It is noisily headlined: The Asaba Massacre(pg 133).
“Armed with direct orders to retake the occupied areas at all costs, this division rounded up and shot as many defenceless Igbo men as they could find. Some reports place the death toll at five hundred, others as high as one thousand. The Asaba Massacre, as it would be known, was only one of many such post-pogrom atrocities committed by Nigerian soldiers during the war. It became a particular abomination for Asaba residents, as many of those killed were titled Igbo chiefs and common folk alike, and their bodies were disposed of with reckless abandon in mass graves, without regard to the wishes of the families of the victims or the town’s ancient traditions.” Then he goes on to quote lengthily from books and what the Pope’s emissary said about it in a French newspaper, what Gowon said, what was said at Oputa panel etc etc. He found time to research. They were his people unlike other Midwestern tribes’ sufferings he couldn’t find “credible corroboration of.” Achebe is incapable of being interested in the sufferings of others.
In the chapter, “The Calabar Massacre,” Achebe not only totally blanks out the well-documented atrocities including massacres Biafran forces committed against the Efiks, Ibibios, Ikwerre, when they occupied their lands and when they were retreating in the face of Federal onslaught, he goes on to tell lies against the federal forces. Achebe writes: “By the time the Nigerians were done they had ‘shot at least 1,000 and perhaps 2,000 Ibos[sic], most of them civilians.’ There were other atrocities throughout the region. ‘In Oji River,’ The Times of London reported on August 2, 1968, ‘the Nigerian forces opened fire and murdered fourteen nurses and the patients in the wards.’” Achebe continues still referring to the same Times article: “In Uyo and Okigwe more innocent lives were lost to the brutality and bloodlust of the Nigerian soldiers(pg137).” How the fact checking services of his publishers allowed him to get away with these is baffling. I looked up the 1968 piece of course. It is a syndicated story written by Lloyd Garrison of the New York Times to balance the piece by John Young which appeared three days before. In the piece Achebe quotes, there is no mention of Uyo or Okigwe or Oji River at all.
This is what is in the piece – the journalist was quoting Brother Aloysius, an Irish missionary in Uturu 150km away from Abakaliki: “But when they took Abakaliki, they put the 11 white fathers there on house arrest. In the hospital outside Enugu, they shot all the fourteen Biafran nurses who stayed behind, then went down the wards killing the patients as well. It was the same thing in Port Harcourt.” This missionary had believed the ruthlessly efficient Biafran propaganda service. Because of the atrocities Nigeria soldiers committed in the Ogoja –Nsukka front and the revenge killings in Asaba, the world had been alerted and it was hurting Nigeria’s arms procurement abroad. So Gowon agreed to an international observer team made of representatives from UN general secretary and OAU to monitor the activities of the three Nigerian divisions and the claims of Radio Biafra. In their first report released on 9th October 1968, there was no evidence of the killings even though it was brought to their attention. Even Lloyd Garrison and other members of the international press corps in Biafra couldn’t find evidence of that particular killings in the hospital. Also note Achebe’s statement: “By the time the Nigerians were done they had ‘shot at least 1,000 and perhaps 2,000 Ibos[sic], most of them civilians.’” How can an intelligent mind write “they had shot at least 1,000” which an uncertainty, and then following it up with another uncertainty: “perhaps 2,000 Ibos” and then say with certainty “most of them are civilians”? How can you say for sure that most of them are civilians when you are not even sure whether they are 1000 or 2000? It defies sense and logic to build a certainty on two concurrent uncertainties and then call it the truth. But that is the meaning of propaganda. William Berndhardt of Markpress and Robert Goldstein were on contract from Ojukwu to handle Biafra’s marketing and propaganda. Nathaniel Whittemore’s seminal thesis, How Biafra Came to Be: Genocide, starvation and American Imagination of the Nigerian Civil War revealed how they did it and how it worked.
Achebe proceeds to celebrate “the great ingenuity” of scientists from Biafran Research and Production Unit who developed “a great number of rockets, bombs, and telecommunication gadgets, and devised an ingenious indigenous strategy to refine petroleum.” Then he drops the most disingenuously incongruous jaw-dropping statement in the book: “I would like to make it crystal clear that I abhor violence, and a discussion of the weapons of war does not imply that I am a war enthusiast or condone violence (pg 156).” That is Achebe who pages before lamented the lack of weapons for his people; that is Achebe who travelled the world soliciting material relief including arms for Biafra; that is Achebe who watched the butchering of a lone mercenary without flinching; that is Achebe who told Rajat Neogy on pg 105: “Portugal has not given us any arms. We buy arms on the black market. What we cannot get elsewhere, we try and make.”
But there is a reason why he drops this dishonest statement here; he is preparing us for what is coming next. We all know what happened in The Godfather when Don Michael Corleone renounced Satan and all his evil works: Achebe begins to praise the indigenously manufactured bomb, “Ogbunigwe” (meaning mass killer, a translation unlike others Achebe doesn’t include in the book for obvious reasons). He continues: “Ogbunigwe bombs struck great terror in the hearts of many a Nigerian soldier, and were used to great effect by the Biafran army throughout the conflict. The novelist Vincent Chukwuemeka Ike captures the hysteria and dread evoked by it in a passage in his important book Sunset at Dawn: A Novel about Biafra: When the history of this war comes to be written, the ogbunigwe[sic] and the shore batteries will receive special mention as Biafra’s greatest saviours. We’ve been able to wipe out more Nigerians with those devices than with any imported weapons”
If the other side dare uses “wipe out,” Achebe would have flagged it at an evidence of the plan to “annihilate the Igbos” but here, he let it pass without comment. It is from his side. And Ogbunigwe was not a product of Igbo ingenuity; it was a “bespectacled” American mercenary from MIT uncovered by the Irish journalist Donal Musgrave that was secretly training Biafrans on how to use fertilizers to make bombs (cf 13 August 1968 cable from American embassy in Dublin to the one in the Lagos).
In the book, Achebe narrates the many diplomatic missions – official and unofficial – he embarked on for the secession. A particularly telling one was to the President of Senegal, Leopold Senghor(pg162). He and Ojukwu were attracted to Senghor because of his Negritude philosophical movement. [This story of course is not true. Sam Agbam who Achebe claimed he travelled with was executed alongside with Victor Banjo, Emmanuel Ifeajuna and Philip Alale in Enugu on Saturday 23rd September 1967. What Achebe went to warn Senghor about didn’t become an issue until June 1968 when Biafra was losing and Ojukwu had to move the capital further south to the heartland of Umuahia then to Orlu. And there was a monstrously centripetal migration of Igbos towards the new capital which resulted in the humanitarian catastrophe. And the Uli airport Achebe claimed they flew from hadn’t being constructed before his travel companion Sam was executed on 23rd September 1967. It was constructed and opened for use in August 1968 because Enugu and Port Harcourt which were Biafra’s only airports had fallen into the hands of Nigerians. So let’s take Achebe’s story as story and move on]. Achebe tells us after days of bureaucratic obstacles, he directly delivered to Senghor, Ojukwu’s personal letter that “informs him of the real catastrophe building up in Biafra.” Senghor, Achebe writes, “glanced through the letter quickly, and then turned to me and said he would deal with it overnight…as soon as possible (pg 162).”
Throughout the book Achebe never says what Senghor response was. That alone should alert the reader that the response wasn’t flattering to the Biafran cause since Achebe usually suppresses unfavourable views and information. In the Foreword Senghor wrote during the war for Ralph Uwechue’s book Reflections on Nigerian Civil War: Call for Realism, we see the reason why Achebe chooses to omit Senghor’s stand. Senghor delivers a classic rebuke to Achebe, Ojukwu and the very idea of Biafra. First, Senghor effusively praises Uwechue: “here at last, is a man of courage and sense,” who didn’t forgo “his ibotism, but because in him this is transcended by a national will, he thus acquires the force to judge both facts and men with serene objectivity.” He said reading the manuscript and encountering arguments “for the unity of Nigeria,” Ralph Uwechue “won him over at once.” Note that with Ojukwu’s letter which Achebe brought, Senghor “glanced through” “quickly” and promised to do something overnight. Then he started discussing philosophy and literature with Achebe. Ojukwu’s letter never “won him over at once.” Yet the letter warned of the urgency of Biafran humanitarian calamity. Clearly, Senghor wasn’t falling for the emotional manipulations the Biafrans are using the humanitarian situation to market like salesmen of dubious goods. Uwechue’s says that all the countries (African) that recognised Biafra as a state did so because of the humanitarian catastrophe not that they saw any value in a sovereign Biafra. He writes:
“The leaders of Biafra should understand that the sympathy which compelled these countries to give them recognition was provoked by the suffering of the ordinary people whom the Biafran leadership despite their earlier assurances proved unable to protect and that the act of recognition was not a premeditated approval of the political choice of secession. Like the secession itself, it was more a REACTION AGAINST than a DECISION FOR.”
I recommend Ralph Uwechue’s book to every Nigerian not only because of the analysis and conclusions he supplies about the war, but because the man is coruscatingly intelligent. President Senghor praises him further: “what he proposes to us, after presenting us with a series of verifiable facts, is more than just a solution. It is a method of finding solutions that are at once just and effective. Herein lies his double merit. Uwechue is a man well informed and consequently objective. He is a man of principle who is at the same time a realist. All through the length of the work, which is clear and brief, we find the combination of practice and theory, of methodical pragmatism and moral rationalism – a characteristic which marks out the very best amongst the anglophones.” In other words, he is everything Achebe is not.
Of course the epic humanitarian catastrophe was Biafra’s golden goose. Their leaders were drumming give-us-guns songs and dances on the bloated bellies of those kwashiorkor children. Achebe writes revealingly: “Ojukwu seized upon this humanitarian emergency and channelled the Biafran propaganda machinery to broadcast and showcase the suffering of Biafra to the world. In one speech he accused Gowon of a ‘calculated war of destruction and genocide.’ Known in some circles as the ‘Biafran babies’ speech, it was hugely effective and touched the hearts of many around the world. This move was brilliant in a couple of respects. First, it deflected from himself or his war cabinet any sentiment of culpability and outrage that might have been welling up in the hearts and minds of Biafrans, and second, it was another opportunity to cast his arch nemesis, Gowon, in a negative light (pg 210; italics mine).” Ojukwu never made efforts to take care of those little children as any leader with a heart would do. Instead, Achebe continues: he “dispatched several of his ambassadors to world’s capitals hoping to build on the momentum from his broadcast.” But the world capitals refused to be duped. Their spies and diplomats were collating objective facts and insider’s accounts. Sir Louis Mbanefo, the Biafran chief justice, then emitted a nessum dorma howl: “…if we are condemned to die, all right, we will die. But at least let the world, and the United States, be honest about it (pg 211).”
Uwechue did what Achebe never did: acting from a firm moral base, he berated Ojukwu and all the Biafran leaders for rallying Igbos to die en mass for the secession. “Sovereignty or mass suicide,” he writes “is an irresponsible slogan unworthy of the sanction or encouragement of any serious and sensible leadership.” What could have caused a thinking man to at least flinch, Achebe rejoices in. Here the unthinking man is narrating the “explosion of musical, lyrical, and poetic creativity and artistry (pg151)” that the Biafran war had brought about: “But if the price is death for all we hold dear,/ Then let us die without a shred of fear…/Spilling our blood we’ll count a privilege;…/We shall remember those who died in mass;…(pg 152)” That is the Biafran national anthem, Land of the Rising Sun. Achebe continues: “The anthem was set to the beautiful music of the Finnish composer Jean Sibelius….” For Igbos to ever compare the Biafran deaths to the Holocaust is to desecrate the Holocaust and cast insults on the memory of the Jewish dead. European Jewry never had an anthem rallying themselves to mass deaths this way.
Another telling episode in the book is the war-ready celebrations amongst Biafran Christians in their houses of God: “Biafran churches made links to the persecution of the early Christians, others on radio to the Inquisition and the persecution of the Jewish people. The prevalent mantra of the time was ‘Ojukwu nye anyi egbe ka anyi nuo agha’ – ‘Ojukwu give us guns to fight a war.’ It was an energetic, infectious duty song, one sung to a well-known melody and used effectively to recruit young men into the People’s Army (the army of the Republic of Biafra). But in the early stages of the war, when the Biafran army grew quite rapidly, sadly Ojukwu had no guns to give those brave souls(pg 171).” Yes Achebe’s words: ‘sadly’… ‘brave souls’… in the house of God? Yet pages before, Don Michael Corleone told us he had renounced Satan and all his evil works.
The wrongheaded intransigence of Ojukwu to take another path in place of secession that was even alarming to neutral observers never makes it into this book unlike other books that recounted the stories. Nnamdi Azikiwe’s Origins of Civil War lists the properties Ojukwu stole even before he declared secession: how “he obstructed the passage of goods belonging to neighbouring countries like, Cameroon, Chad and Niger, and expropriated them.” Achebe writes that wealthy Biafrans’ private accounts were used to buy hardwares for the war. He never tells us that Ojukwu stole via armed robbery, money worth billions in today rates at the CBN branches at Benin, Calabar and Enugu because he had no money to prosecute a war he was obsessed with fighting without thinking the consequences through very well. Achebe never berates Ojukwu both then and now that he is recollecting with benefit of hindsight on clearly stupid judgements. For instance, swindled by propaganda, Dick Tiger, the Liverpool-based Nigerian boxer renounced his MBE to come and fight on the side of Biafra. Achebe writes: “Ojukwu made Dick Tiger a lieutenant in the army of Biafra as soon as he enlisted (pg 158.)” That is a man with no military training or background was given over hundred fighters to command as an assistant of a captain by just showing up in Nigeria.
Instead of upbraiding him, Achebe goes on to praise Ojukwu as a man who needed little or no advice. “This trait would bring Ojukwu in direct collision with some senior Biafrans, such as Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, [Dr] Michael Okpara, Dr Okechukwu Ikejiani and a few others who were concerned about Ojukwu’s tendency toward introversion and independent decision making (pg119).” The US State Department’s files on Ojukwu did not dignify dictatorship with fanciful language the way Achebe does; they called it by its proper name. Here is a telegram cabled to Washington and some other American embassies worldwide:
“Internal situation has changed a great deal since secession was first declared. Ojukwu now rules as a dictator and moves about surrounded by retinue of relatives and yes men. Responsible Ibos who had been advising him at the start of the war have been eliminated in one way or the other from the picture because they came to believe accommodation of some sorts would have to be reached with FMG[Gowon’s Federal Military Government]. Situation so bad that Biafran representative in Paris Okechukwu Mezu has quit in disgust. Azikiwe refuses to go back to Biafra and is sitting in London as an exile. Ojukwu’s propaganda machine, by succeeding in creating the impression of some forward movement, masked the cold fact that Biafrans are unable to break out of FMG’s encirclement.”
That was 2nd of February 1969. Had Ojukwu listened to the advice of “responsible Ibos” in his inner caucus all along, more lives would have been saved, instead he surrounded himself with irresponsible Igbos like Achebe and other yes men. Take the chapter, “The Republic of Biafra: The Intellectual Foundation of a New Nation”. Achebe’s committee was National Guidance Committee; his office was in Ojukwu’s state house. “Ojukwu then told me he wanted the new committee to report directly to him, outside the control of the cabinet. I became immediately apprehensive…Nevertheless I went ahead and chose a larger committee of experts for the task at hand (pg 144).” Then the experts started to work on what was to become the Ahiara Declaration which Ojukwu read on radio June 1, 1969 “very close to the end of the war.” There was starvation, great panic, epidemic, anxiety, bereavements and despair in the streets. Even according to Biafra’s propaganda statistics over a million were already dead. The war was obviously unwinnable. Federal forces had captured Enugu Biafra’s first capital, Umuahia, the second capital, Onitsha, Port Harcourt, Calabar, Nsukka and many places in Biafra. Biafran troops were desperately fleeing and hiding. Yet Achebe and his Oxford and Cambridge Igbo intellectuals who clearly had the ear of power to tell Ojukwu the truth and prevent further deaths, were busy writing sycophantic declarations. [N.U. Akpan who was the secretary to Biafran government was particularly scathing on these “arrogant” “ignorant” intellectuals too in his account of the war] “The day this declaration was published and read by Ojukwu was a day of celebration in Biafra,” Achebe writes. “My late brother Frank described the effect of this Ahiara Declaration this way: ‘Odika si gbabia agbagba’ (It was as if we should be dancing to what Ojukwu was saying). People listened from wherever they were. It sounded right to them: freedom, quality, self-determination, excellence. Ojukwu read it beautifully that day. He had a gift for oratory(pg 149).” It was a day of celebrations indeed. Now we know that Abacha’s Ministers of Lies and Dishonest Fabrications, Comrade Uche Chukumerijie and Dr Walter Ofonagoro had a common precedent.
The Americans too took note of the two and a half hour long Declaration and cabled this commentary to Washington:
“Ojukwu repeatedly develops the theme that ‘our disability is racial. The root cause of our problems lies in the fact that we are black.’ Considering the humanitarian and political support in response to Biafran propaganda, the level of relief flown in, and the concern expressed by private organizations and governments, Ojukwu’s speech is almost unreal as he omits even a passing reference to the International Red Cross, Caritas or French military assistance.” That is white people’s efforts for black Biafra. They continue: “In his efforts to foster solidarity and support for continuing the war and maintaining the secession, Ojukwu appeals as much to fear and xenophobia… Ojukwu sees the Nigerian civil war in almost conspiratorial terms. For example: he describes the war as the ‘latest recrudescence in our time of the age-old struggle of the blackman for his true stature of man. We are the latest victims of a wicked collusion between the three traditional curses of the blackman: racism, Arab-Muslim expansionism and white economic imperialism.”
All along the Americans knew of the ruthlessly efficient Biafran propaganda. They questioned how they arrived at the 20/30/50,000 killed in the North before the war. Reviewing Ojukwu’s radio broadcast of 14th November 1968, the Americans cabled this to Washington: “Ojukwu claimed 50,000 were ‘slaughtered like cattle’ in 1966, adding that in the course of war ‘well over one million of us have been killed, yet the world is unimpressed and looks on in indifference.’ (Comment: this is the highest figure we have seen him use for the pre-war deaths, and the one million claimed killed since the war began is inconsistent with his assertion in the same speech that 6,700 Biafrans have been killed daily since July 6, 1967.)
They also noted Ojukwu’s fabrications in his broadcast of 31st of October 1969 that President Nixon “had acknowledged fact of genocide,” that earlier on, he, General Ojukwu called on Nixon “to live up to his words.” When at the inception of secession, Biafran Radio broadcast the countries that had recognised Biafra, the Americans informed Washington: “Following countries have denied recognition of Biafra: US, USSR, Ethiopia, Israel, Australia, Ghana, Guinea…wording of statements varies greatly, but all disapprove of secession, or use words such as recognition, integrity of Nigeria, support for federal government. (June 9, 1967)” In fact, Ojukwu and the Biafran project were one long crisis of credibility. In the cable of 22nd of May 1969, the Americans cabled Washington: “How he (Ojukwu) can continue to deceive his people, and apparently get away with it, is minor miracle, but difficult to see how much delusions can last much longer.”
By the time truth finally triumphed over propaganda, the Biafrans had to find another man to blame for the war and the deaths: Enter Chief Jeremiah Obafemi Awolowo, the Losi of Ikenne (whom Achebe falsely claimed Ojukwu released from prison). First to what the autobiography of Harold Smith, one of the colonial officers the British Government sent to rig Nigeria’s pre-Independent elections in favour of the North had to say about Awolowo:
“But the British were not treated as gods by the Yoruba. In my experience, the Yoruba regarded themselves as superior to the British and one only had to read a book written by Awolowo, the Western leader, to know why. The Yoruba were often highly intelligent and they taunted the British with sending inferior people to Nigeria. The Igbo would be humble and avert his eyes in the presence of a European. The Yoruba child would look at an important European and shout, ‘Hello, white man,’ as if he were a freak.”
What is more: “Awolowo in the West had taunted the British by claiming that his Government had accomplished more in the space of two or three years for his people than the British had since they arrived in West Africa.” Of course Achebe knows about these facts because he quoted from the book but only the part favourable to his agenda. Smith again:
“The thrust of the British Government’s policy was against the Action Group led by Chief Awolowo which ruled in the Western Region. Not only was the British Government working hand in glove with the North which was a puppet state favoured and controlled by the British administration, but it was colluding through Okotie Eboh with Dr Azikiwe – Zik – the leader of the largely Igbo NCNC which ruled in the East.” More: “We tricked Azikiwe into accepting to be president having known that Balewa will be the main man with power. Awolowo has to go to jail to cripple his genius plans for a greater Nigeria.”
Achebe reveals his own mentality we never suspected before: “We [intellectuals] were especially disheartened by the disintegration of the state because we were brought up in the belief we were destined to rule [pg 108].” He uses this mind-set of his to judge Awolowo:
“It is my impression that Chief Obafemi Awolowo was driven by an overriding ambition for power, for himself in particular and for his Yoruba people in general…However Awolowo saw the dominant Igbos at the time as the obstacle to that goal, and when the opportunity arose – the Nigeria – Biafra War – his ambition drove him into a frenzy to go to every length to achieve his dreams. In the Biafran case it meant hatching up a diabolical policy to reduce the number of his enemies significantly through starvation – eliminating over two million people, mainly members of future generation (pg233).”
This is blood libel and an evil lie. It will stain Albert Chinualumogu Achebe forever and ever. Awolowo built the first stadium in Africa, the first TV station in Africa, the first high rise building in Nigeria, first industrial estate, cocoa development board, Odua Investment Group like the current Dubai World or Chinese Investment Corporation. He offered free universal education and free universal primary healthcare that America has been struggling to achieve for the past 200 years. What is more important, Awolowo never situated all these in his hometown of Ikenne in Ogun state; he spread them round the region he presided on. And the free universal education and free primary healthcare were available to anyone of any tribe or nationality including Nupe, Igbos, Ijaw and Ghanaians living in the Western Region. Awolowo was interested in bettering the lives of everyone not just the Yoruba.
On the so-called Awolowo Blockade
To talk about a blockade of Awolowo on Biafra is to concede that the control of Biafra’s borders was already under his control. The control or defence of borders is the main aim of any war since the beginning of war making all over the world. That is why the best of US battleships and fighter jets are currently patrolling east and west coasts and airspace. That was why Troy built impossibly high fortifications around their city. One of the main reasons Roman empire collapsed was that its boundaries were getting too vast to be defended by an incommensurate number of men and resources. But the 34year old General, Lt Colonel Ojukwu Biafra to secede based on only two thousand professional soldiers and extremely few artillery; they didn’t have enough to defend their borders. “If the Nigerian side had known the state of Biafran troops including their morale, they would have pursued them even on canoes across the River Niger. Had the Nigerians taken up such pursuit, they might have taken Onitsha, Awka and Enugu that same day.” That is Achike Udenwa who was a Biafran soldier and later became the governor of Imo writing about the federal defeat of Biafra in the Midwest during the early weeks of the war in his own recollection Nigerian/Biafra War. Even, the so-called January boys, Nzeogwu and Ifeajuna both voiced their concern that the Biafran soldiers were vastly underprepared for any kind of war. Achebe also admits that: “Biafran soldiers marched into war one man behind the other because they had only one rifle between them, and the thinking was that if one soldier was killed in combat the other would pick up the only weapon available and continue fighting(pg 153).”
Therefore, Before the first bullet was fired, the secession was not only a failure but was an epic humanitarian catastrophe waiting to happen. Awolowo told Ojukwu one of the reasons the West won’t be able to join the secession was because the region already occupied by Northern troops didn’t have enough loyal men in the Nigerian army to defend the region. Weaned on the hermeneutics of Yoruba history, Awolowo was not persuaded by the seductive but senseless logic that the Nigerian forces would lose because they would not be able to prosecute war on two fronts if the West joined the East in seceding. At one point during the Kiriji war in the 19th century, Bashorun Ogunmola(omo arogunde yo) the Kingdom of Ibadan’s generalissimo was simultaneously warring with five neighbouring and far-flung kingdoms. Ibadan never lost. To defeat Ibadan you don’t have to defeat even its retreating soldiers only, you have to defeat those dull-looking but patriotic hills surrounding it. In fact one of the reasons why Ibadan was so belligerent in its history was that those mighty hills allowed her to spend little resources defending and more on attacking. But Biafra was not surrounded by hills literarily or figuratively. Her borders were so porous that they fell easily into the opponent’s hand. Days after declaration of secession, the sea boundary of Biafra was already being manned by Nigeria’s battleships and boats. By the sixth week all the boundaries of Biafra were already under the control of Nigerian government.
I conducted an experiment with my Igbo colleagues. Let us assume that Awolowo or the entire West adopted a ‘siddon look’ approach. Draw the map of Biafra complete with the Atlantic Ocean, Niger and Benue bridges as Golden Gate Bridge and Brooklyn Bridge and call the place USA. I asked them to outline the strategies to capture USA in the event of a war. Their strategies were not different from the path the Biafran propaganda accused Nigerian government of taking. And in fact had only Awolowo’s Western Region seceded, the strategy to recapture it would not be at variance with the one used against Biafra because the West is geographically an enantiomer of the East. It was the same blockade Major Nzeogwu imposed before going in to capture and kill in cold blood their targets: the Sardauna and his senior wife, Ademulegun and his eight months pregnant wife, Mrs. Latifa Noble in the presence of their two children Solape and Kole. (As Solape recollects years later, Nzeogwu who pulled the trigger on her mother was a family friend who used to come often to their house to eat pounded yam and egusi soup. The little girl was even calling him Uncle while he shot her mother in the chest their bedroom.) It was the same blockade Captain Emmanuel Nwobosi imposed to capture Fani-Kayode and kill Akintola, the Western Premier. It was the same blockade American Navy Seals imposed around Osama Bin Laden’s hideout before they zoomed in.
“What about the neighbouring country, (Cameroon) whose side was it on?” One of my participants asked. Of course Cameroon was firmly on the Nigerian side yet they have a sizeable Igbo population and Azikiwe’s Igbo party was NCNC – National Council for Nigerian and the Cameroons. But Ojukwu had stepped on their toes: he had stolen enough of their goods and supplies that they helped the federal side to take Calabar and cooperated with the naval blockade of Biafra. As the US State Department’s cable of 29th November 1968 discloses: “GFRC[Government of the Federal Republic of Cameroon] continues to support FMG [federal military government] and recently ordered the dissolution of newly formed Cameroon relief organisation(CAMRO) which was being organized to receive Biafran children in west Cameroon.” Note to Ojukwu in case of next time: Be careful of the message your actions send to your friends. When they turn against you, they won’t be nice.
On the so-called Awolowo’s starvation policy.
In Achebe’s book one could see several places where Biafrans violated the basis of Geneva conventions. You could see where villagers who were non-combatants and should have been protected under Geneva conventions were taking machetes to federal soldiers hence becoming legitimate targets of war themselves. Another striking instance was when Achebe was with his extended family and overnight their compound was turned into military base without their consent (pg 172). Heavens forbid the Nigerian side bombed the base. Yes, the Biafran propaganda machine would go to work that an innocent illustrious family had been eradicated by the “genocidal Nigerian army” and may even use it as an evidence of war crime. But the truth is that the Biafran army that deserved condemnation for compromising Achebe’s household.
As part of security preparation for the last Olympics, the British Army commandeered a strategic high-rise residential building and placed surface-to-air missiles at the top. The residents protested and went to court. Let us assume a war broke out and the enemy flatten the whole building. He has not committed a war crime because it was the British army that made the civilian residents a legitimate target in the first place. Unfortunate though it may sound, schools, hospitals, churches, mosques, relief centres become legitimate targets once military activities begin to go on there in the event of a war. Check for instance the current Hamas tactics against Israel or the bombing of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka when it allowed itself to become the headquarters of local Biafran army with several professors joining in expedition force to hunt down lost federal soldiers in the bush and their wives back on campus took care of wounded Biafran soldiers and students were going for daily drills and rifle shooting practice under Prof John C. Ene, Dean of Faculty of Sciences and Commander University Defence Corps as revealed in the US secret cable of 16/06/1967. Or the federal raid on the Catholic Cathedral of The Most Holy Trinity, Onitsha when it was discovered Biafran snipers with their ammunitions were operating from there.
When a plane or ship is designated as flying relief supplies to war sufferers, it must not be used to supply arms. Once it does, it is no longer covered by Geneva conventions. There was an Austrian Count, Carl Gustaf von Rosen whom Achebe praises a lot for his humanitarian assistance in flying relief efforts to Biafra. This is what the Count’s wife had to say: “He told me he was going to Biafra but he didn’t say he would be bombing MIGs (pg 300).” Achebe writes of the von Rosen: “He led multiple relief flights with humanitarian aid into Uli airport – Biafra’s chief airstrip. Fed up with Nigerian air force interference with his peaceful missions, he entered the war heroes’ hall of fame after leading a five-plane assault on Nigerian aircraft in Port Harcourt, Benin City, Ughelli, Enugu, and some other locations. He took the Nigerian air force by total surprise and destroyed several Soviet-supplied aircraft in the process.” That was someone flying humanitarian aid. How would the federal side begin to see other humanitarian flights that were supposed to be carrying food and medical supplies to war-ravished children? Cyprian Ekwensi a writer and head of external publicity for Biafra admitted in his post-war reminiscences that the relief materials had arms built into them. (The American documents too confirmed. The same Hank Warton which the relief agencies were using to fly food into Biafra was the one Ojukwu was using to deliver arms.)
Of course the Nigerian side knew this and mandated all relief flights to Biafra to submit themselves for inspection at the Port Harcourt airport. That was the interference Achebe claimed the Count was fed up with. (Anyway the Count never claimed such in that 6th July 1969 interview he gave the London Observer) Those planes that passed their inspection delivered their relief. Those that did not were shot down. One particular case was the Swiss Red Cross DC7 Flight heading towards the Uli strip (pg 101). After repeated warnings to change course and land for inspection, it was shot down. The Biafran propaganda went to work saying it was part of the genocide policies of Nigerian military to destroy merciful food supplies meant for the malnourished children.
Never mind that many of the relief supplies meant for the children were either ambushed by soldiers or ended up in the black markets. Ekwensi again: “People were stealing and selling the food. You could buy it in the market but you couldn’t get it in the relief centres.” But why would Biafra rely on food from thousands of miles away when their normal antebellum route of supply was merely tens of miles nearby in the Midwest and Northern Nigeria, the food basket of the nation? It was because of the supply of arms and ammunition. Ojukwu and the Biafran leadership never cared about those poor children. In a memorandum to the White House, Benjamin Read, the Executive Secretary of US State Department writes: “Because of the absence of other airlines willing to make hazardous flights into Biafra, the ICRC[International Committee Of The Red Cross] has been forced to charter planes from Henry Warton, an American citizen, who is widely known to be Biafra’s only gun runner. In engaging Warton, the ICRC is risking its good relations with the FMG, which has long feared that ICRC flights might provide opportunity for gun running.” When Awolowo offered to reopen the usual food corridors, Ojukwu flatly refused. Achebe writes: “Ojukwu like many Biafrans, was concerned about the prospect that Nigerians could poison the food supplies (pg211).” Awolowo let in the food supplies for the children anyway working with the cover of Caritas and Red Cross. Achebe can tell lies: “In America, the Nixon administration increased diplomatic pressure on the Gowon administration to open up avenues for international relief agencies at about the same time, following months of impasse over the logistics of supply route.(pg 221)” There was neither pressure nor its increment.
“The problem of disaster relief in Biafra is not the lack of supplies or means of transport but the lack of access, particularly by a land corridor to Biafra.” William B. Macomber, Jr, the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations wrote in a letter dated 20 December 1968 to Congresswoman Florence Dwyer when she sought clarification on the plight of Biafran refugees she kept seeing in the media. “The authorities [Biafran] on the spot, under the conditions of civil war have given a higher priority to politico-military considerations than to arranging food to be delivered to Biafra. In early November [1968] the Nigerian government told the ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] that it would agree to daylight relief flights to the major airstrip now held by Biafra if the ICRC could give assurances that the strip would handle only relief flight in daylight hours. We welcome this step by the Federal Government (FMG), which would substantially increase the flow of relief. So far, however, the Biafran authorities have refused to agree. We find it incomprehensible that despite the millions of Biafran lives at stake, the Biafran leadership has not yet given its agreement. The Nigerian government has also offered to cooperate in efforts to open a land corridor to Biafran-held territory. We hope that the Biafran authorities will respond positively to this but heretofore they have alleged they fear the food may be poisoned while transiting FMG territory.”
Later when Awolowo visited the battlefronts and saw the heartrending impact of kwashiorkor on the children, he asked about the food supplies, only to discover that soldiers were ambushing the supplies, feeding themselves and the top hierarchy so as to continue the war. They never cared about those suffering children. Awolowo decided this “dangerous policy” must stop. To protect those children who were suffering because of the war, he asked for a stop to the food supply that was inevitably going to the soldiers and the Biafran plutocrats unnecessarily elongating a war they would never win.
It takes deep wisdom to understand Awolowo’s concern for the poor Biafran children. As he himself repeatedly said “only the deep can understand the deep.” So let’s distil this wisdom for Achebe to understand. There was a family of beggars from Niger Republic I once saw at Falomo roundabout, in Ikoyi, Lagos. The useless parents lay idle all day and night under the bridge and sent their children around to beg for alms. One would literarily have a big stone in place of a heart not to help those children once they approached you. They were really suffering and stinking. Church members from of Our Lady of Assumption, Falomo (one of the richest in the country) decided to help the children, bathing them, sprucing them up in decent clothes and giving them nourishing food. By the following day, their parents have redressed the children in tattered and stinking clothes because that was the form that was needed to compel emotions from people and get huge alms.
As someone who now understood clearly what the parents were using their kids for, are you still supposed to be giving those children alms? (Once Cameroon too realised that to the Biafran authorities, the suffering kwashiorkor children existed for show business and arms trade, they not only refused to take them into their country, they disbanded the newly formed relief agency dedicated to their welfare.) Now consider what these manipulative parents of filthy children in Falomo, Ikoyi would say when they discover alms are no longer coming in? ‘Look at these rich people from a rich house of God; aren’t they supposed to be kind and merciful to suffering little children?’ This perspective of irresponsible parents was the basis of accusing Awolowo of genocide through starvation. What is more, Achebe boasts of Biafran prowess in manufacturing Ogbuniwe, ‘the mass killing bombs’, he boasted of Biafran innovative refinement of petroleum that kept Biafran vehicles on the road throughout the war without western technological help, but the most basic of human necessities – the production or the supply of food – they had no clue. And the farmers that were supposed to grow food as the US documents noted were conscripted into the Biafran army during planting season of 1967. The fertilizers that could have been used to better their lands were used to make Ogbunigwe, the mass-killing bombs. And yet Achebe claims the starvation was Awolowo’s fault.
On The Twenty Pound Policy
Throughout the war, as the US State Department’s confidential files disclose, there was no shortage of people and “isms” to blame for the failure of war. Also, during several of his radio addresses, Ojukwu blamed the war on the British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson who supplied 15% of Nigeria’s arms. He called the Kwashiorkor afflicting Biafran children Harold Wilson Syndrome or Herod Disease. Like the biblical King Herod, Ojukwu said, Harold Wilson wanted to exterminate the children of Biafra. They believed him.
While the blame-Arabs/Hausa/Islam narrative, blame Wilson/racism/imperialism narratives that were so potently alive during the war are now safely dead, the blame Awolowo for starvation narrative is well alive going viral from generation to generation To the Americans who monitored and documented everything about the war, there was no time Awolowo was blamed for the starvation or deaths in these 21,000 pages. However, after the war, it was through this twenty pound policy that the blame – Awolowo narrative began. To develop it, they seized on this policy and worked their way back to include what Awolowo may have said or done mix it together form a narrative.
The twenty-pounds-for-every-Igbo was a myth it never happened. What happened then was a currency crisis. On the 30th of December 1967 during the war, Awolowo decided to change the Nigerian currency in circulation in order to render the £37 million Ojukwu had stolen useless for buying foreign weapons. The Biafran leadership quickly took the loot, mopped up the ones they could get in circulation and headed to Europe to exchange them for hard currencies. Eventually they introduced Biafran notes as the only legal tender. There were around £149 million Biafran pounds in circulation by the end of the war – an average of £10 per every Igbo. After the war, there was a general scramble to exchange these notes for the new Nigerian notes. As Awolowo explained, he didn’t know on what basis these notes were produced. It is like someone bringing a single fifty billion Zimbabwean dollar note to the bank and expected to be given fifty billion naira. The exchange rate should be known to determine the worth of the Zimbabwean dollar. Currently, 39 billion Zimbabwean dollars is worth 1 US dollar. In the case of Biafra, the worth of the currency was unknown; they were produced out of desperation with lax security features to boot. In his statement of 1st February 1968, Dr Pius Okigbo, Biafra’s Commissioner of Economic Affairs said that “the lack of international acceptance and lack of a commensurate exchange rate was immaterial since the currency was intended only for circulation in Biafra.” In other words, it is worthless outside Biafra. After the war those that have this junk money were carting them to Nigerian banks hoping to get equivalent new Nigerian notes. No banker or economists of sense would approve that. Awolowo in his move to rehabilitate the Igbos and restore economic normalcy approved the payment of 20 Nigerian pounds flat rate for every Biafran notes depositor. It was never £20 for every Igbo. £20 for every Biafran? That would have been around £300 million when Nigeria’s annual budget before the war was £342.22 million for a population of 57million.
On the Indigenization Decree.
The true winner of the civil war was the Nigerian military class who succeeded in using everybody against everybody and continue their indefinite aggrandizement of the self by fleecing the country to the bone as the next 30 years confirmed. After the January coup, Aguyi-Ironsi used Dr Nwafor Orizu, the acting president, to capture power. What Nzeogwu and Ifeajuna wanted to use bloodletting to achieve, he grabbed it on “a scrap piece of paper” as Shehu Shagari’s eyewitness account Beckoned to Serve discloses. The New York Times describes it as a coup within a coup. Gowon used Awolowo for the war and to keep the country economically viable. He took advantage of the failed secession to perpetuate himself in power. “Go On With One Nigeria (GOWON),” he stumped. He was not only Nigeria’s longest serving head of state, he was the longest looter of Nigeria’s treasury. Ojukwu too as Wole Soyinka observes in his own ipsissima verba You Must Set Forth At Dawn, was also interested in conquering Nigeria not only in seceding. Unknown to Victor Banjo and his Third Force, Ojukwu had embedded special companies within the Third Force to topple Banjo and hand control of Nigeria to him in case Banjo succeeds in conquering the West and Lagos.
The indigenisation decree had nothing to do with disenfranchising the Igbos or other Biafrans of economic power. As was the vogue in 14 African nations then, indigenisation and nationalisation was the ruling military class and their friends’ way of dressing their bottomless impulse to loot with the populist cloak of fighting western imperialism and neo-colonialism. For their roles during the war, Awolowo or Chief Anthony Enahoro should be getting major oil blocks. But no, they were interested in nation-building not treasury-looting. How can Achebe explain someone like Achike Udenwa who fought for his people only ?to become a governor 40years later and rob his people of billions? Did he use any indigenisation decree? The Nigerian ruling thieves span all tribes and so are their victims.
Indeed Awolowo could be ‘ethnocentric’ The Yoruba region like pre-European Union Europe was always in a state of constant war. Ibadan vs Ekiti vs Egba vs Ondo vs Ijebus vs Ife vs Ijesha vs Egbado etc. It was because of this internecine war that made Yoruba land susceptible to easy French colonialism to the west (Dahomey, Benin Republic) and British Royal Niger Company taking the rest. When Awolowo “resuscitated ethnic pride,” he used it to rally Yoruba to stop fighting and killing each other. This resuscitation wasn’t to elevate the Yoruba so that they would dominate other tribes. Achebe observes: “Awolowo transformed the Action Group into a formidable, highly disciplined political machine that often outperformed the NCNC in regional elections. It did so by meticulously galvanizing political support in Yoruba land and among the riverine and minority groups in the Niger Delta who shared similar dread of the prospects of Igbo political domination (pg45).”
Achebe never addresses this dread even though he mentions it in two other places. Nowhere in the book does he stump for brotherliness or make a stand for tribal harmony. In 1961 the British Cameroonians had to decide their fate through a UN plebiscite since their lands were too small and landlocked to stand as a country. The peoples of the Northern Cameroons voted to belong to northern Nigeria while the peoples of the Southern Cameroons not wanting to belong to the Igbos decided to belong to the Republic of Cameroon even though they were French-speaking. The reason why minorities need to be very afraid at the prospects of collaborating with Igbos is an important topic Achebe conspicuously skips, instead he spends the final pages of the book resurrecting the 44 years old propaganda of genocide.
Achebe litters the book with hyped phrases and sentences like “Smash the Biafrans,” “presence of organized genocide”(pg 92)… “the Nigerian forces decided to purge the city of its Igbo inhabitants (pg137)”… “the cost in human life made it one of the bloodiest civil wars in human history(pg 227)… “prospect of annihilation (pg 217)”… “Standing on the precipice of annihilation (pg 217).” Those that can rightly talk of annihilation were the people of Abudu. The American document of 15/10/67 noted: “As the ‘Biafrans’ retreated from Benin to Agbor, they killed all the men, women and children they could find who were not Ibos. The town of Abudu, one of the larger places between Agbor and Benin, lost virtually all of its population with the exception of a few who had escaped to the bush. Those that can rightly talk of annihilation were the Jews. Not only do Nazi policy documents say so, on-the-ground facts support that. In Poland, Germany, Austria and the Baltic countries alone, Hitler aiming for 100%, killed 90% of Jews. The writer, Cyprian Ekwensi, a chief of Biafran propaganda says: “We gave the number of children dying per day as 1,000. Can you prove that? Can you disprove it? But can you believe it? That is propaganda.” So let us take the Biafran propaganda at its highest and assume 3 million, i.e. 100,000 per month died in the 30months war. The Vietnamese genuinely lost close to 3 million to the Vietnam War but they do not talk of American’s plan to annihilate them.
Neither do the Japanese, the world’s first and only victims of nuclear explosion. Azikiwe repeatedly argued that though Igbos were killed in the North, it doesn’t mean the tribe was “slated for slaughter” as a policy. Even Colin Legum whom Achebe claims was the first to describe the 1966 revenge killings of Igbos in the North as pogroms does not think so too. (On pg 82 instead of stating the source of Legum article, Achebe references his own interview in Transition.). In the London Observer of 26 May 1968, Legum writes: “It is clear that there is no systematic attempt at exterminating Ibos to justify charge of genocide.” Also Ojukwu’s hitherto unknown Director of Intelligence and External Communications, the American priest Rev Fr Kevin Doheny too said in a secret but frank conversation with an American diplomat that the claim of genocide is “highly exaggerated but without it Biafrans would have given up fighting long time ago.”
If there was any intention to exterminate Igbos, why after Ojukwu had fled and the Biafran military had been completely paralysed, the Nigerian military did not use the opportunity to turn the guns on the defenceless Biafrans and mow them down, or carpet bomb them? They never did that. Instead there were steps to welcome them back into the fold. It is wicked of anyone to ever talk of “genocide” or “prospect of annihilation” when the context and facts on ground say otherwise. It is insulting to the memory of true genocide victims. “If you are blind, describing an elephant is easy.” Achebe writes in The Education of a British-Protected Child. “You can call it, like one of the six blind men in the fable, a huge tree trunk; or perhaps a gigantic fan; or an enormous rope, and so on. But having eyes, far from making such descriptions easy, actually complicates them.” Achebe throughout the book choose the easy path of the blind over the complex task of a conscientious writer. Having taken a low road, he wants to arrive at a high point by invoking the Mandela Example in the final pages. Mandela described Achebe as the writer “in whose company the prison walls fell down.” With this his presumably last book, There Was A Country, Achebe is the writer in whose company dangerous walls are rising up: walls of tribal hatred, walls of lies, walls of sloppy thinking and lazy research, wall of propaganda and walls of moral ineptitude.
– Damola Awoyokun, a Structural and Marine Engineer in London is also the Executive Editor of Pwc Review. He can be reached at executiveeditor@pwc-review.com
