The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Achebe

Achebe and the facts of the civil war

SIR: Every Yoruba man or woman living has reason to be angry at anything that is capable of portraying late Chief Obafemi Awolowo in bad light, no matter how factual. Awo as he was popularly called was a hero to the Yoruba race. His matchless achievements in various fields of human endeavours especially in the field of education ensured that the children of the poor got educated in the West. Awo was a Yoruba before being a Nigerian and he made no pretence about it while alive. As a war time federal commissioner of finance in the regime of General Yakubu Gowon, he presided over the war budgets. He was seen as a powerful voice in that administration. Gowon used him to get the support of the Yoruba on his side during that war. Therefore the reactions of so many Oduduwa sons and daughters over the historical analysis stated by Prof. Achebe in his recent book ‘’There Was a Country: A Personal History of Biafra’’ is expected.

What Achebe wrote in his book is not new as so many Nigerians especially Ndigbo have known this before now. Why it is raising much dust now could be because it is written by a literary giant of Achebe’s calibre. Many Ndigbo believed and still do, that Awolowo hated them and are quick to make references to what Achebe wrote and other issues.

Take for example, in 1979 Chief Awolowo as presidential candidate of Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) came to Aba in one of his electioneering campaigns and told his audience that if he became president, he will ban the importation of stockfish and second hand clothes. Hardly had he finished the statement when stones began to fly from various corners of Etche Road Primary School field venue of the campaign. Ndigbo saw Awo’s statement as another economic blockade coming if he wins that election.

For a race that was just recovering from the devastating effects of civil war, and considering the fact that many Ndigbo have embraced buying and selling these stuffs as a means of sustenance, Awo’s statement was viewed with all seriousness. I recall late Dr. Chuba Okadigbo’s reaction that “it is callous for anybody to think of banning items that are apropos to Ndigbo”.

Recall also that the indigenization decree of 1973 was primarily targeted at Ndigbo to ensure that they did not rise again. Or how else can one explain the giving of twenty pounds to any account holder of Igbo extraction after the war no matter how much he or she has in account before the war broke out? With that paltry sum, Ndigbo could not participate in the indigenization programme and a large chunk of the companies were bought by a section of the country.

The time has come for the true account of the civil war. Nigerians need to know who did what and it is idiotic for anybody to ask that an apology be tendered when such facts come to the open. What Achebe has done is a tip of the iceberg. Others should emulate him so that those who do evil will know that a day will come when everything will be brought to the public domain.

• Ijoma M. Okey.

Bompai Kano.

November 6, 2012
Achebe’s personal history of Biafra

A little over four years ago, precisely October 9, 2008, Chinua Achebe, one of the world’s greatest novelists and essayists and, for me, Africa’s greatest literary figure, delivered the keynote lecture on the occasion of the Silver Anniversary of The Guardian at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Lagos. The lecture, entitled “What Nigeria is to me,” was vintage Achebe; simple, eloquent, coherent, rigorous and full of insight.

He delivered the lecture on tape but his physical absence did not make it any less riveting for the distinguished audience that gathered that beautiful morning to listen to him.

For me, the most memorable lines of that lecture were his concluding paragraphs. “Nigeria,” he said in reference to our first and second national anthems that have respectively described the country as ‘motherland’ and ‘fatherland’, “is neither my mother nor my father. Nigeria is a child, gifted, enormously talented, prodigiously endowed and incredibly wayward. Being a Nigerian is abysmally frustrating and unbelievably exciting. I have said somewhere that in my next re-incarnation, I want to come back as a Nigerian again. But I have also in a rather testy mood in a book called The trouble with Nigeria dismissed Nigerian travel advertisements with the suggestion that only a tourist with an addiction to self flagellation (will) pick Nigeria for a holiday. And I mean both. Nigeria needs help; Nigerians have their work cut out for them, to coax this unruly child along the path of useful creative development. We are the parents of Nigeria, not vice-versa. A generation will come if we do our work patiently and well and given luck; a generation will come that will call Nigeria Father or Mother, but not yet.”

Achebe’s logic was impeccable; a country is what its citizens make of it, not the other way round. And until a generation of those citizens emerge who can feel proud of what their progenitors have bequeathed to them, the country cannot rightfully lay claim to father- or mother-hood.

Few people, if any, would disagree with Achebe that Nigeria is yet to arrive at that happy milestone in its 52 years of independence from British colonial rule. The reason for the country’s failure to do so are many, not least of which is the failure of leadership which Achebe as essayist dwelt on extensively in his now famous little book, The trouble with Nigeria.

Of course, the failure of leadership has not been the only trouble with Nigeria, even though it’s arguably the biggest. Also up there with the failure of leadership are problems of ethnicity, corruption and selfishness, all three – and even more – of which seem pervasive not just among our leaders but also among their followers.

For Achebe, obviously, the work cut out for Nigerians, whatever their status or profession, is to conquer these and other vices, or contain them at the least. For the writer in Africa the “overall goal”, he says in his latest book, THERE WAS A COUNTRY: A PERSONAL HISTORY OF BIAFRA which has provoked a huge controversy, is “to challenge stereotypes, myths and the image of ourselves and our continent and to recast them through stories – prose, poetry, essays and books for our children.”

Reading through the book, it seems to me the great writer has failed his own test of challenging stereotypes and myths about, and images of, the various nationalities that make up our country. Instead, he seems to emerge at the end of the book as an Igbo supremacist at worst, or its apologist, at best.

Take for example the issue of the nationalist struggle. “The original idea of one Nigeria,” he claims matter-of-factly, “was pressed by leaders and intellectuals from the Eastern Region. With all their shortcomings they had this idea to build the country as one. The first to object were the Northerners, led by the Sardauna, who were followed closely by the Awolowo clique that had created the Action Group.”

This was clearly a blatant distortion of history because neither the Sardauna nor Awolowo objected to independence from colonial rule as one Nigeria. What Sardauna objected to was the timing for the simple and understandable reason that for historical reasons the South had a huge head-start over his region in producing the skills required for running the government, and he needed time to do something about the gap.

However, whereas the Sardauna objected only to the timing of the demand for independence, every school child knew it was Awolowo’s Action Group through its member, Chief Anthony Enahoro, and not Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe’s NCNC, that moved the original motion for our independence by 1959.

That AG’s Enahoro moved the motion did not, of course, necessarily mean the party spearheaded the independence struggle. As Achebe said, Zik was a pre-eminent figure in that struggle, even more preeminent than Awo. Surely, however, the writer knew that before Zik there were non-Igbo politicians like Herbert Macaulay, Sir Adeyemo Alakija, Chief Bode Thomas, Kitoye Ajasa, etc – the so-called Black Victorians on account of their English lifestyle and aspirations – who wanted the colonialist to leave.

Take again his position that other Nigerians, and even the British ex-colonialists, harboured a visceral hatred of the Igbo because of their successes in life. He does admit some flaws in what he says is the Igbo character which he blames somewhat as the source of this universal envy of the group, but quickly glosses over these in his attempt to blame others for the civil war that led to the deaths of millions of his countrymen in the Biafran enclave.

“The British dislike (for the Igbo),” he said in The Guardian silver anniversary lecture I mentioned above, “was demonstrated when they accused the Igbo of THREATENING to break up a nation state they had carefully and labouriously put together.” (Emphasis mine).

How anyone, least of all Achebe with all his respect for scholarly rigour, would describe Lt Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu’s declaration of a Republic of Biafra as a mere threat to break up Nigeria simply beggars belief.

In his defence of Achebe’s book in an interview in the new newsmagazine, Verbatim, Professor Fabian Osuji, a former minister of education and now the Director-General of the Ikemba Odumegwu-Ojukwu Centre, Owerri, said General Yakubu Gowon was wrong to blame the Igbo for seceding. Gowon, he said, “did say that if there was no secession, there would be no war. Alright, which means that secession led to the war? But he was not honest enough to say what led to the secession.” This, he said, quite rightly, was the pogrom against the Igbo, especially in the North, which made them feel completely insecure outside the East.

Osuji’s position merely echoed Achebe’s when he said in his book he believed that following the pogrom in the North which he claimed without stating any evidence was compounded by the involvement, even connivance of the Federal Government, “secession from Nigeria and the war that followed was inevitable.”

However, if Gowon, as Osuji says was not honest enough to say what led to the secession, Osuji himself was not honest enough to say what led to the pogrom.

In his Guardian silver anniversary lecture, Achebe does admit, albeit half-heartedly, that the first coup was a remote cause. “In the bitter suspicious atmosphere of the time,” he said, “a naively idealistic coup proved a terrible disaster. It was interpreted WITH PLAUSIBILITY as a plot by the ambitious Igbo of the East to take control of Nigeria from the Hausa-Fulani North.” (Emphasis mine).

In his book, however, he failed to admit even the plausibility that the coup was an Igbo coup. Instead, he sought to revive the rationalisation that the coup was meant to rid the country of the corrupt and inept politicians who led the First Republic. Nowhere in the book was there any mention of the fact that mostly senior Northern army officers who had no role in public policy were also targeted and murdered in cold blood.

Again nowhere in the book was there any mention of the role of Igbo triumphalism, as exemplified in the so-called unification decree and the manner it was declared without consultation by General J.U.T. Aguiyi-Ironsi, and also as exemplified in the widespread gloating over the manner the Sardauna was killed in his residence by the coup leader, Major Chukwuma Nzegwu Kaduna, played in provoking the pogrom.

One highly symbolic example of this triumphalism was recounted by the expatriate managing director of the New Nigerian, Charles Sharp, in an article I have had cause to refer to on these pages. “I,” he said in the article entitled “The story that got away” (New Nigerian, January 20, 2003), “had a personal experience of the arrogance stemming from the South when Cyprian Ekwensi and his committee arrived at the NNN and informed me they were taking over. He wasn’t precise about who ‘they’ were, but a team from Enugu would run the newspapers. I was ordered to terminate the contracts of the expatriate staff and offer my own resignation as managing director. My immediate reaction was one of disregard and silence, for I was in no position to protest or adopt postures.” (This article is highly recommended reading for anyone with any interest in the story of the collapse of the First Republic.)

What happened at the NNN, still then owned by the North, was enough to alarm the people of the region, especially their leaders, that their region was now regarded as conquered territory.

No doubt, Achebe is a great writer but with his latest serving, he has largely failed the biggest test of good writing which is not just to be highly readable, which THERE WAS A COUNTRY is, but to tell truth to your readers.

The truth of our civil war was that there were rights and wrong on both sides of the war. For once, it seems, Achebe chose to speak the truth, at times only half-truths, about one side and gloss over, or even deny, the truth about the other side – his side.

October 24, 2012
‘There was a country’: Ogbunigwe, Abagana ambush; Achebe, Okigbo and Ifeajuna

THE OGBUNIGWE BOMB: commonly known as Ogbunigwe during the Biafran war, its fame and mystique traveled wide on both sides of the divide. Considered a technological breakthrough of Igbos during the war, the bomb, which may well be a higher version of today’s I.E.Ds (improved explosive device) was deployed to great effect by the Biafran army.

With the economic blockade of Biafra having a telling effect, the people turned inwards, devising survival strategies and apparatuses. Apart from extracting and refining their own petrol; they also had improvised armoured tanks and piloted their planes. The renowned Professor Godian Ezekwe led a team of scientists in what was known as the Biafran Research and Production Unit, RAP. This think-tank group is said to have developed rockets, bombs and telecommunications gadgets.

According to Achebe, quoting another great author, Professor Chukwuemeka Ike, the ogbunigwe was put to so much devastating effect against the federal troops that the fear of the explosive was the beginning of wisdom for them; to the extent that the Biafrans succeeded more with it than any imported weapons. Ike in his book, Sunset at Dawn: A Novel about Biafra, captures it thus: “You must have heard that the Nigerians are now so mortally afraid of Ogbunigwe that each advancing battalion is now preceded by a herd of cattle.”

Boasting about this feat in what is regarded his last official wartime speech, Ojukwu said: “ in three years of war, necessity gave birth to invention… we built bombs, rockets, and we designed and built our own refinery, and our own delivery systems and guided them far. For three years, blockaded without hope of import, we maintained all our vehicles.

“The state extracted and refined petrol, individuals refined petrol in their back gardens. We built and maintained our airports, we maintained them under heavy bombardment… we spoke to the world through a telecommunications system engineered by local ingenuity.

“In three years, we had broken the technological barrier, became the most advanced black people on earth.”

THE ABAGANA AMBUSH: March 25, 1968 probably remains one of the most memorable days in the Nigeria –Biafra war. It was the day the Nigerian side suffered the heaviest single loss in the war. Known as the Abagana Ambush, the Second Division of the Nigerian Army led by Col. Murtala Muhammed had finally crossed the Niger Bridge after failing in the first attempt (having been repelled by the Col. Joe Achuzia’s guerrilla army and suffering heavy casualties). Having crossed into Biafra, the plan was to link up with the First Division led by Col. Shuwa penetrating the Igbo heartland through the north from Nsukka. As Achebe notes: “The amalgamation of these two forces, the Nigerian Army hoped, would then serve as a formidable force that would ‘smash the Biafrans’”. Col. Muhammed was said to have assembled and deployed, a convoy of 96 vehicles and four armoured cars to facilitate this plan on March 31, 1968.

However, Biafran intelligence was said to have got wind of the move and a Major Jonathan Uchendu was charged with working out a counter-attack strategy. With a 700-man team, a counter- attack plan was hatched that essentially sealed up the Abagana Road while the troops lie in ambush in a nearby bush waiting patiently for the advancing Nigerians and their reinforcements.

Achebe writes that “Major Uchendu’s strategy proved to be highly successful. His troops destroyed Muhammed’s entire convoy within one and half hours. All told, the Nigerians suffered about 500 casualties. There was minimal loss on the Biafran side.” It was probably the most resounding battle ever won by the Biafrans in the entire war.

ACHEBE, OKIGBO AND MAJOR IFEAJUNA: Christopher Okigbo, the cerebral poet and Achebe had known from their Government College, Umuahia days. Though Okigbo was two years junior to Achebe in class, they struck up friendship very quickly and maintained the closeness till Okigbo’s tragic end in the war front. After Umuahia, they were to meet again at the University College, Ibadan, and while Achebe was in the Nigerian Broadcasting Service in Ikoyi , Lagos, Okigbo was West Africa manager for Cambridge University Press. Their friendship was such that Okigbo was godfather to one of Achebe’s sons and on many occasions during the ensuing tumult in Igboland, Okigbo played ‘father ‘ role to the Achebe house- hold.

When the war was in full force and all the Igbo personalities had returned, Enugu was the natural settlement for most of the elite returnees in the early days before the ancient town was bombed into submission by the federal forces. It was in Enugu; precisely on Michael Okpara Avenue, that Achebe and Okigbo set up their publishing outfit called Citadel Press. It was indeed the idea of Okigbo who thought out and even worked out the whole project before getting Achebe to come on board. The crux of it all was to publish educational materials, including children’s books and books that would capture the ongoing crisis.

The first book Citadel Press worked on was, “How the Dog Became a Domesticated Animal,” by John Iroaganachi. Achebe and Okigbo chose to rework the folktale and turn it around to become, “How the Leopard got its Claws.” This book never got to see the light of the day before the shelling of Enugu became unbearable and most people had to scamper and relocate further into the hinterland.

While Citadel still functioned, Okigbo had brought a manuscript from Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna, one of the five majors who plotted the January 1966 coup. The twain were thoroughly disappointed with Ifeajuna’s account of that critical event of Nigeria’s life. Hear Achebe: “I read the treatise through quickly and became more and more disappointed as I went along. Ifeajuna’s account showcased a writer trying to pass himself off as something that he wasn’t. For one, the manuscript claimed that the entire coup d’etat was his show, that he was the chief strategist, complete master mind, and executer, not just one of several. He recognized the presence of his coconspirators but did not elevate their involvement to any level of importance.”

Chukwuma Nzeogwu, one of the chief protagonists of the January 1966 coup called the manuscript a lie while Achebe and Okigbo thought it too irresponsible to deserve publication. The manuscript was later to vanish to the regret of Achebe who thought it could have been preserved at least as a version of what transpired on that fateful January of 1966. Christopher Okigbo who had become a Major in the Biafran army was to be felled in the war front in August 1967, in Ekwegbe, close to Nsukka.

Achebe who had fled from Enugu under the hale of shelling returned to Citadel Press after the war to find the small building reduced to ruble. It was instructive that a number of buildings in the vicinity had been unscathed by the conflict, but this one was pummeled to the ground. It was the work of someone or some people with an ax to grind, he thinks. TOMORROW: THE ECONOMIC BLOCKADE AND STARVATION; EPILOGUE

October 23, 2012
Achebe: Between A Man of the People and There was a Country

Does Chinua Achebe’s new offering portend the augury of his 1966 book, A Man of the People? This must be the silent question niggling the mind of the more perceptive reader of the mint fresh “There was a Country.” The book could well have been eerily titled, There was a Nigeria. Is this the central message of this 82 year-old sage and national icon who has lived through it all? Unlike in 1966 when the publication of his A man of the People almost heralded the first coup in Nigeria which he had predicted in the book, will Nigeria’s grim history repeat itself?

The book which has unfortunately welled up an ocean of controversy, having come to the world legs-first like an abnormal childbirth because of a mischievous excerpt published in a British newspaper, may have its vital message lost to a bickering that has degenerated to the age-old Igbo-Yoruba supremacy tussle. There is no doubt that had that particular portion of the book not been highlighted by The Guardian of London, not many Nigerians would have found, or for that matter, noticed that contentious characterisation of Chief Obafemi Awolowo which is tucked away near the end of the book.

But in There was a Country, Achebe has written a strange little book that is at once his life story, his history of the Biafra War and Nigeria’s crises; a work of prose and a dash of poetry all skillfully meshed together. Shall we say that this is Achebe’s catharsis, a distillation of all that was good and all that was baleful for a man who was 30 years old, an established author and a senior civil servant under a colonial entity before the birth of Nigeria in 1960? By this tale, he has bequeathed to Nigeria a sprawling canvass of her once beautiful era, a political independence placed delicately on faulty pedestal like an accident designed to occur, the regression, the war and the eerie danger of an impending violent end.

In a four-part book, he tells his story from the beginning: his early Christian convert father who embraced the Whiteman’s faith so very religiously and immersing his family unquestioningly into it. The seed of Achebe’s epic novel, Things Fall Apart was probably sown in these early days when in spite of early indoctrination inexorably found an undying fascination in the Igbo traditional religion practiced by many kinsmen of that era.

Achebe also gives us a glimpse of his precocious childhood, his appetite for study and books; his plucky school days, especially at Government College, Umuahia, and the University College, Ibadan. From his St. Philips Primary School in his rural Ogidi, now in Anambra State, and a stint in Central School, Nekede, Owerri, Achebe (aka Dictionary as he was nicknamed then) had come out tops in the national common entrance to Government College, Umuahia, GCU, and earning a scholarship to boot. In like manner, he came out top graduating student at GCU too and again, winning what was called a “major” national scholarship to study medicine at the University College, Ibadan, in 1948.

Hear him: “I grew up at a time when the colonial educational infrastructure celebrated hard work and high achievement and so did our families and communities. Government College, Umuahia, was so proud of my work that they put up a big sign announcing my performance in the national entrance examination. That notice stayed on the wall for years.”

Achebe had great company in the pioneer set at the University College, Ibadan; the very best of young Nigerians from every corner of the country. A most remarkable group made up of the likes of Chike Momah, Flora Nwapa, Mabel Segun, Ben Obumselu, Emmanuel Obiechina, Kelsey Harrison, Gamaliel Onosode, Wande Abimbola, Iya Abubakar, Adiele Afigbo, Igwe Aja Nwachukwu, Theophilus Adeleke Akinyele, Grace Alele-Williams, Mohammed Bello, Elechi Amadi. This group was joined later by Wole Soyinka, J.P. Clark, Oluwakayo Oshuntokun, M.J.C. Echeruo, Christopher Okigbo, Ayo Bamgbose, Christine Okoli (his future wife), Chukwuemeka Ike, Abiola Irele, Zulu Sofola, and several others.

With such an array of home grown intellectuals of Nigeria’s pre-independence era and a horde of foreign trained ones, how could the new country have gone awry and disintegrated almost soon as it was ‘founded’? Achebe asserts that the British compromised the country right from day one. Describing Nigeria’s immediate post-independence era, Achebe says: “Within six years of this tragic colonial manipulation Nigeria was a cesspool of corruption and misrule. Public servants helped themselves freely to the nation’s wealth. Elections were blatantly rigged, the subsequent national census was outrageously stage-managed; judges and magistrates were manipulated by politicians in power. The politicians themselves were pawns of foreign business interests.

“The social malaise in the Nigerian society was political corruption. The structure of the country was such that there was inbuilt power struggle among the ethnic groups, and of course those who were in power wanted to stay in power…”

If this was the situation in the 1950s and 1960s as Achebe observed, the situation has reached its nadir today, 52 years after, taking the country to a tipping point whence there may cease to be a country. To this chronic and nation-threatening condition, Achebe proffers solution thus: “Africa’s post-colonial disposition is the result of a people who have lost the habit of ruling themselves. We have also had difficulty running the new systems foisted upon us at the dawn of independence by our “colonial masters”. Because the West has had a long but uneven engagement with the continent, it is imperative that it understand what happened to Africa. It must also play a part in the solution. A meaningful solution will require the goodwill and concerted efforts on the part of all those who share the weight of Africa’s historical burden.

There was a Country is a quaintly nice book which, had Achebe not written it, he would have done grave harm to the history of Nigeria, being a learned, enlightened witness and a participant to this peculiar history. Obviously tortured by his own story, he must have found some relieve in disgorging it. TOMORROW: THE POGROMS, THE ABURI ACCORD AND THE WAR BEGINS.

October 17, 2012
‘Achebe’s book is replete with inaccurate facts, claims’

The new book by renowned author and literary icon Prof Chinua Achebe – There was a country – has continued to generate heat in the country. Former Federal Commissioner for Works and Housing Femi Okunnu (SAN), who was in government between 1967 and 1974, queries the allegations and claims made by the author. He spoke with Staff Correspondent Eric Ikhilae.

what is your assessment of the new book by Prof Chinua Achebe?

I have read only newspaper reports and excerpts from the book, (that was published in The Nation on October 5) written by that erudite Nigerian scholar, Professor Chinua Achebe. I am amazed at the extent of the intellectual dishonesty displayed by Prof. Achebe in alleging that the Federal Government under General Yakubu Gowon, in which I had the honour of serving, had a policy of denying our fellow Nigerians, who were trapped in Biafra, relief materials. There is no such policy by the government, in which I was a member.

Was it true that the then Federal Finance Commissioner Chief Obafemi Awolowo suggested to the government to adopt starvation as a war weapon?

Right from the declaration of war on May 27, 1967 until the cessation of hostilities in January 1970, to the best of my knowledge, whatever Chief Obafemi Awolowo might have said or said to have said, as reported by Prof Achebe, was not the Federal Government’s position. It was not the government’s policy at all. I say this as the leader or one of the leaders on the Federal Government side during the peace talks. Chief Anthony Enahoro (of blessed memory) led the federal delegation to the preliminary talks initiated by the then Commonwealth Secretary in London early in 1968. The talks shifted to Kampala, Uganda, with the then President of Uganda, Dr. Milton Obote, as the Chairman, who presided over the bilateral talks between the two sides. Chief Enahoro led the federal delegation to the talks in Kampala. I was not a member of either delegation, but I played a key role in the important peace talks, starting from Niamey unto Addis Ababa and Monrovia. In Niamey, Gen Gowon and Chief Awolowo were members of the federal delegation. Colonel Emeka Ojukwu also attended as leader of his own delegation. When the two leaders returned from Niamey, I led the federal delegation to the remainder of the talks, mostly to prepare the agenda for the substantive talks in Addis Ababa.

What was the focus of the various talks held between both sides?

The federal delegation left Lagos on August 3, 1968 for Addis-Ababa and the leader of the delegation was Chief Enahoro. I was the deputy leader. Col. Ojukwu attended the first day’s talks. The talks started on August 5 and was presided over by the Imperial Majesty, Emperor Haile Selassie. After a day or two, Col. Ojukwu left and turned over the leadership of his delegation to Professor Eni Njoku, who was Vice Chancellor, University of Lagos before the outbreak of hostilities. Chief Enahoro left after a week, leaving me as the leader of the federal delegation for the rest of the period.

The talks ended about the third week of September. And the main topic for our discussion was how to create corridors for the passage of relief materials from Nigeria, but mostly from outside the country, to our brothers, who were trapped within the Biafran enclave. The first week was taken up by political issues – cessation of hostilities and return of Biafra to the Nigerian Federation. When the talks on that issue was suspended, for the next four or five weeks, we were in Addis Ababa, with me as the leader of the federal delegation and Prof Njoku as the leader of the Biafran delegation, discussing various corridors which we proposed for passage of relief materials to Biafra.

We discussed air corridor, we discussed land corridor; we discussed sea and river corridors, no holds barred. But unfortunately, the various proposals, which we brought forward were turned down by the other side. We couldn’t reach any good conclusion. So, to say that there was deliberate policy of the Federal Government, initiated by Chief Awolowo, is at best intellectual dishonesty. That is not the true position of the Federal Government at the time. And certainly, that was not our position during the peace talks.

Are there facts to support this position?

My autobiography contains the full discussions of all the talks. From London to Kampala, Niamey, Addis Ababa, and the last peace talks, which took place, I think in April or May in Monrovia. Let me also say this, Emperor Haile Selassie presided over all the joint meetings we had between the federal delegation, led by me and the Biafran delegation led by Prof Njoku, for all the five weeks. The meetings all centred on how to get relief materials to the Biafran side. There is also this issue which I must emphasise. There were reports and there were incidents of some of the aircraft carrying relief materials to the other side, also carrying arms. There were such incidents. We must be very frank and truthful to ourselves.

So, my autobiography devotes about 120 pages to nothing, but largely how relief materials would get to Biafra before the cessation of hostilities. Again, the main discussion between us was on the passage of relief materials to the other side. So, I deny completely that there was any Federal Government policy to starve our brothers in the rebel held area during the civil war. In fact, it was Ojukwu, who used hunger as a weapon of war because he denied any agreement on relief corridors. We proposed so many corridors – Lagos to Benin and Asba, across the Niger. That was rejected. Port-Harcourt, by river, to Oguta. It was also rejected. Fom Lagos, directly to the rebel. It was also rejected. Fernandopo to Port-Harcourt; rejected. We discussed different corridors. Air, water and land, they were all rejected. Ojukwu was more interested in Biafra. Having got the support of France in getting its surrogates – Ivory Coast ( now Cote D’Ivoire) and Gabon – to recognise Biafra, and with Kenneth Kaunda of Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) and Julius Nyerere of Tanzania recognising Biafra, Ojukwu was more interested in the permanent sovereignty of Biafra. So he used relief materials at a weapon of war.

How true is Prof Achebe’s description of Chief Awolowo as a selfish and ambitious politician, who saw the war as an opportunity to advance his agenda of capturing political power for the Yorubas

Well, as an ambitious politician, he was. As a man who wanted power, of course he did seek power and he acquired power in the Western Region. He was a powerful politician. For me, I was on the other side of the divide politically.

This is because like most young persons and students in London in the early 1960s, we were for a fairly meaningful federal system of government because the regions were too strong. And Chief Awolowo was an advocate of strong regional governments.

We were for the central government being stronger than the regional governments at that time at least, to be able to hold the regions together. Then, the Premiers were more important than the Prime Minister of Nigeria. Having said that, I agree that he (Chief Awolowo) was ambitious and he sought power. We all know that he built his political power, using the Western Region of Nigeria, largely Yoruba speaking, as his power base. We as young persons, and that is where I differ from him, looked at Nigeria as a single unit. We wanted people who will look at Nigeria and speak to people; seek power from all the people of Nigeria and not just one part of it. We wanted a Nigerian leader, not a regional leader. So, that is the much I can say about Chief Awolowo.

That he was seeking power for his Yoruba people, well leave that. I think that is rather cheap. That is because, at the end of the day, Chief Awolowo sought support from the minority groups in the North, notably in the Middle Belt and also in Borno area. He also sought and got support from the so called minority areas in the then Eastern Region, notably, what we now call the oil producing states.

Chief Awolowo built his power not only from the West, but also in the Rivers and Calabar part of Nigeria, and the Middle Belt and Borno. So, to say he wanted power for his own people alone is neither here nor there. Towards the end, he sought power to be the President of Nigeria and he failed. And as Ojukwu himself said, he was the best president Nigeria never had.

How will react to the author’s argument that the change of currency was meant to weaken the Igbos economically?

Again, that is very cheap propaganda. When the currency was changed, there were some reasons for it. Before the civil war and during the war, but largely during the war, Central Banks were looted and Nigerian currencies were looted. That itself call for a change of currency by any sensible government. Secondly, I was Gowon’s emissary to negotiate with President Gnassingbé Eyadéma of Togo, when a plane load of Nigerian currencies landed in Togo. Gowon sent me to negotiate the return of the currencies and the plane. The story is told in my autobiography. So, with Nigerian currencies flying around, any sensible government will change the currency.

The change of currency affected everybody. Everybody was given a certain period of time to exchange the old notes for the new notes. I think the aim of the government at that time was to try and stabilise the currency of the country because of the looting of the Central Banks. Remember the bank at Enugu was under the full control of Ojukwu. One or two other Central Banks outside the rebel held areas were also looted.

How credible is the claim that the banning of the importation of stock fish and used clothes was an anti-Igbo economic policy?

Are they the only one eating stock fish? Are the Igbos the only people that sell and wear second hand clothes? That is very irrelevant, although, in the context in which he wrote his book, it was all part of the attempt to liquidate the Ibo speaking Nigerians. So, outsiders, who do not know who eat stock fish or not , will have the impression that it is only the Ibo speaking who eat stock fish or wear used clothes.

How true is the allegation that in prosecuting the war, the state’s acted in a manner that could pass as genocide?

On the issue of genocide, I must confess that there was massacre of Nigerians who came from outside the Northern region after the Unification Decree of the late Aguiyi Ironsi on May 24, 1966, when he abolished the federal system and introduced the unitary system of government by Decree. There was riot all over the place and most unfortunately, many Ibo speaking and other non-Ibo speaking Nigerians were killed in the Northern part of the country. We must admit that fact. I condemn what happened in the North in May 1966. There was reprisal in some parts of the East. I condemn all the killings by both sides. But genocide during the war? No. I remember the incident during which a soldier, I think it was in the Third Div, under Col, later Brigadier General Benjamin Adekunle, killed innocent civilians, the soldier was shot dead on the order of the Federal Government. There was no genocide from my point of view and from my knowledge as a member of government at that time.

What about the children that were reportedly taken outside the rebel area?

This was clear propaganda of war. It was a weapon of war by Col Ojukwu to prolong the war and also to make Biafra a reality, a sovereign state. The title of Achebe’s book: “There was a country”, is wrong. There was no country. There was rebellion. As I said at the time, if Lagos declared secession out of Nigeria, I Femi Okunnu, will be on the federal side. There was no genocide. War involves killing on both sides. And both sides killed. I must emphasise that Gen Gowon had a booklet of instructions given to his field commanders to follow Geneva Convention.

How can the people grow in the face of these contradictions and mutual suspicion among the various ethnic groups?

We should all learn to be Nigerians. You don’t find a Chinese either inside or outside their country saying he comes from a section of the country. A Chinese is a Chinese anywhere. China has 1.5 billion people, Nigeria has only 150million. And that is why China is almost number two in the world in terms of economic development. Same goes for India. Nigerians should be proud to Nigerians. I do not have problem with the development of culture. These are part of the riches of the country. So, until Nigerians begin to think of Nigeria as a single political and economic unit, and act in that manner, Nigeria will never make it. We only much noise about being the biggest country in Africa, many countries which were behind Nigeria in Southeast Asia – South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia. In the 60s and 70s these countries were far behind Nigeria in economics terms, but now they well ahead of us. We rely only on oil. Palm oil and palm kernel industries are almost gone. Cocoa and groundnut are dead. So, we should make up our mind to return to where we were in term of production of cocoa, palm oil or palm kernel. Nigeria was number one and number three in the production of palm oil and palm kernel in the world. Malaysia, which borrowed palm oil seedling for experimenting in their country, is now exporting palm oil to Nigeria. It is Malaysian oil that we now consume in Nigeria. Back to the point I am making, ethnicity should be dead. We can develop our individual cultures and tradition, but they must not be brought into political arena. We should not allow ethnicity determine our political choice and decisions.

October 17, 2012
Achebe deserves pity

SIR: Chinua Achebe’s love for the Igbo people obviously is boundless. And his commitment to ‘Biafra’ was or continues to be profound. Hence, his latest book:There was a country. But like most human beings, Achebe is a ‘bundle of contradictions’. Not once has he publicly decried the cruel treatment meted out to the peoples in present day Rivers, Cross Rivers, Akwa-Ibom and Bayelsa States of Nigeria by ‘Biafran’ authorities, which he represented as a roving ambassador.

In The trouble with Nigeria, Achebe, in Chapters 4 and 10, accuses both Dr. Nmandi Azikiwe and Chief Obafemi Awolowo, SAN, of poverty of thought. Their offence? A documented desire to improve

themselves financially and morally in the capitalist society they dwelt in and to help others, both in their public and private capacities, even from their private income. Achebe bases his position on a single paragraph each from the respective biographies of Zik and Awo, without attempting a cursory analysis of other published works of theirs and achievements in public service, and the factors that

contributed to their stated position. Thus an illustrious novelist may be capable of downright shallowness.

Major Nzeogwu did not plan a ‘sectional’ coup, but the execution in January 1966 was sectional and Easterners were spared. Azikiwe was tipped off by Major Ifeajuna and conveniently left Nigeria in advance. Both Northern and Western soldiers and politicians were shot dead. The (counter) coup of July 1966 was the ‘return match’. Hundreds of Igbo soldiers were killed. Some Yoruba, i.e. Major Adegoke, were killed, others brutalized, i.e. B.A.M. Adekunle (Black Scorpion), and others went into hiding, i.e. Olusegun Obasanjo, who took refuge in the Emir of Katsina’s palace. The immediate aftermath of the ‘return-match’ was the widespread killings of Igbo people all over the North (and hundreds of Westerners and others peoples from the present day South-South were killed too).

Igbo remnants fled back to the East, so also thousands of Westerners and ‘South-Southerners. Some Yoruba, i.e. Wole Soyinka, were jailed while others, i.e. Professor Sam Aluko, were harassed by security agencies, for ‘supporting’ Biafra. But the fate of the other Nigerians not of Igbo extraction that lost their lives and those that suffered has never been Achebe’s direct concern.

If Achebe were to be believed, the Nigerian Federal Government with General Yakubu Gowon as Head of State and Awolowo as Vice Chairman, Federal Executive Council, Alhaji Shehu Shagari [Nigerian President during the second republic] and Alhaji Aminu Kano as ministers designed and executed genocidal policies against the Igbo people. Yet, Achebe singles out Awolowo for special mention in regard to allocation of opprobrium.

Blatant revisionism cannot alter the fact that Awolowo’s reference to starvation being a legitimate instrument of war was in specific reference to not allowing food supplies to reach Biafran soldiers,

while Biafran High Command refused the passage of humanitarian supplies, food inclusive, during day time. In any case, Emeka Ojukwu, the Biafran warlord, whom Achebe obviously prefers to Azikiwe, frankly stated in an interview granted to Tell newsmagazine well over a decade ago that there was never an agreement between him and Awolowo that the West would support or follow the East in secession.

Achebe’s predictable, consistent and virulent denigration of Awolowo and his reference to Yoruba people profiting from alleged genocidal treatment of Igbo people and his prior references to the

‘fantastic burst of energy’ with which Igbo people ‘equaled’ the educational achievements of Yoruba people perhaps indicate a mind somewhat in bondage to ethnic chauvinism and a morbid and baleful

fascination with Yoruba people, despite ‘lip service’ to Nigerian unity and progress.

• Paul Temitope,

Lagos

October 16, 2012
Row grows over Achebe’s attack on Awo

The row over literary giant Chinua Achebe’s memoirs, There was a country, grew yesterday, with leaders supporting or opposing the position of the celebrated writer.

Achebe, in his just released Civil War memoirs, accuses the leaders of the then Federal Government, particularly Gen. Yakubu Gowon, who was the Head of State, and the Vice Chairman of the Federal Executive Council (FEC), the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, of committing genocide against the Igbo.

Achebe said the late Chief Awolowo inspired “starvation of the Igbo” as a weapon in the war.

In a statement yesterday, an associate of the late Chief Awolowo, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, said: “I am sad and distressed that a literary giant and an elder statesman such as Professor Chinua Achebe could be credited with the statement attributed to him in his latest book on the Nigerian Civil War at this time in Nigeria’s political history, over 40 years after the end of the Nigeria Civil War.

“Fair minded persons cannot accuse Chief Awolowo of being part of the intellectual arm of a cabinet that intentionally initiated the pogrom of the Igbo, when in fact the record shows he took positive steps to persuade Ojukwu to avoid the conflict.

“Whilst the war was raging, Chief Awolowo visited Enugu and Port Harcourt where he saw Kwashiorkor (malnourished) victims for the first time. He wondered how this could happen in view of the quantity of food items sent through international agencies to the civilians in these areas. He was then informed that the food never got to the civilians, the food items were cornered by the soldiers who were feeding to the detriment of the civilians. One can imagine such a report being provided to a cabinet filled with military officers conducting a war.

“It should not be surprising that to avoid feeding enemy soldiers, the federal government at the time put a stop to the delivery of food meant for the civilian population that was being hijacked by Biafran soldiers. This is what Achebe mischievously called the deliberate starvation of the Igbos…

“If it is true that Chief Awolowo was such an architect of pogrom and genocide against the Igbos, how would Professor Achebe explain the fact that there were no incidents of pogrom or genocide against the Igbo in any part of the then Western Region composed mainly of the Yorubas, and Chief Awolowo’s primary sphere of influence. Rather, the Igbos who fled the West on the clarion call of Ojukwu for them to return to the East had their properties kept safe for them, with the rents collected on the properties duly accounted for at the end of the civil war and paid to such Igbo owners. It should be noted that no incidents of “abandoned property” occurred in the Western Region – Chief Awolowo’s zone.”

Another associate of the late Leader of the Yoruba, Chief Ayo Fasanmi, is worried over the statement credited to Achebe on the late sage.

Speaking in a telephone interview, Fasanmi described Achebe’s comment as a plot to pitch the Igbo against the Yoruba.

The Second Republic Senator said that without Awolowo’s understanding of the country’s situation and sound judgement at the time, there would not have been Nigeria today.

He said: “It is unfortunate that somebody of Achebe’s intellectual capacity could be bringing up issues about the war fought and forgone many years back.

What is the rationale behind Achebe’s action and what does he want to achieve?”

“When the nation’s major challenge is how to bring various ethnic nationalities together in the interest of everybody and for the unity of all sections of the country, somebody from the blues is just gathering his thoughts and fanning embers of disunity.

“What is far more important is for the Igbo to join the rest of the nation to build a common front for the nation’s unity. No one should be happy with the way things are in the country today. There are corruption, energy problem, social infrastructural decay, security challenges and many others for all of us to come together and fight.”

Fasanmi insisted that no one could rubbish the late Chief Awolowo and his legacies. The late sage, Fasanmi said, was a great detribalised Nigerian, who should be praised rather than condemned by anybody.

Chief Reuben Fasoranti, who spoke from Akure, said: “Prof Achebe and his people have been unfair to Awo. Awo was fair to them because he gave them jobs and other benefits of governance, especially in the West. It is not true that Awo was fighting for his selfish ends with his role during the war. In fact, Awo believed that the war was unnecessary.

“All through his life, Awo believed in the indivisible corporate existence of Nigeria, which was what informed the role he played during the war. Awo was a man who fought for, and believed firmly in, the unity of the country, even to a fault.”

Chief Ebenezer Babatope, who was the Director of Organisation of the Awo-led Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) in the Second Republic, said the attack on the late sage by Achebe is “condemnable and uncalled for”. He said he was still trying to come to terms with the motives behind the constant attacks on Awo by the novelist.

“The attack is condemnable and uncalled for. I am still wondering what Achebe’s motives could be because 30 years ago, he wrote a book titled The trouble with Nigeria in which he attacked Papa Awo.

“I have not read the new book, but after reading it, I will give a detailed response to all the diatribe against Papa Awo. Some of Papa Awo’s associates were pro-Biafra during the war. Take the case of the late Ayo Ojewunmi, who was the Editor of Nigerian Tribune; he was arrested and detained severally on account of his stance on the war.

“But let me state that Yoruba and Igbo will not quarrel over this, but we will trash it out intellectually so that we can forge a more united country out of the present,” he said.

Mr Odia Ofeimum, a former private secretary to the late Chief Awolowo, said he was yet to read the book and so would not comment comprehensively on it. Nevertheless, he added, “the genocide in Biafra was largely created by those who insisted on going to war even when they did not have the guns to prosecute the war”.

“ It cannot be blamed on Chief Awolowo. The outcome (of the war) was predictable, “ the poet-critic said.

Senator Olufemi Lanlehin described as mischievous Achebe’s views. He said: “He has not been able to explain his role in the war. He was a Cultural Ambassador and contributed to the declaration of the war.

“Chief Awolowo’s denial of enunciating anti-Igbo policies is well-advertised. The newspapers just recently published an interview on the issues that Achebe has just raised. On the currency, the exchange of loads of Biafran pounds for 20 Nigerian Pounds, it is clear that it was for the purpose of saving the Nigerian economy. It is what any Finance Minister worth his salt would have done. I do not think that he did anything against international best practices.

“The professor has been very uncharitable to Chief Awlowo and the Yoruba by those comments. The records are, in any case, available for anybody to see.”

The spokesman of the Afenifere Renewal Group, Mr. Kunle Famoriyo, called on the Igbo to be discerning in evaluating the submission of Prof Achebe. He said: “If the Igbo are discerning enough, they should by now know their enemies, and they include Achebe. Otherwise, why is he peddling at this point in time what did not happen?”

Famoriyo said what should concern all patriots and progressives, at this juncture in the history of the country, is how to achieve a common front against reactionary forces. He said the ARG has been working towards ensuring a united front in the South just like the North has a Forum to aggregate and push its position.

“What we want now is a united Southern Forum to canvass regionalism and restructuring of the country. It is the only way forward, and throwing us back to issues that kept us divided in ages past, even when the contentions lack foundation, is quite unfortunate.”

Delving into history, the ARG spokesman said: “Anyone who has a sense of history would easily recollect that the pogrom stemmed from a contention between Ojukwu and Gowon over who should be the Head of State. Ojukwu would not accept Gowon as Commander-in-Chief and thus decided to resist the decision. What had that to do with Awolowo or the Yoruba?

“Achebe should at least have been honest enough to admit that the Yoruba were not fully drawn into the war, until an attempt was made to overrun Yorubaland through Ore. In that case, what did Achebe expect?”

Famoriyo said genuine progressives should move beyond the controversy and think of how to overcome the current challenges facing the country.

But the former President General of the apex Igbo socio-cultural organisation, Ohaneze Ndigbo, Dr Dozie Ikedife, said nobody should crucify Achebe for his comment because “the truth must be told”.

Ikedife said the genocide happened because people were hungry; children, mothers and fathers died, adding that what Ndigbo needed was for somebody to apologise to the people by saying “gentlemen, I’m sorry”.

This, according to him, would solve the matter once and for all. “Let no one fool any person,” he said, adding that the genesis of the crisis is well known.

He said some Yoruba admitted that the strongest weapon used against Igbo during the war was hunger and starvation, the rest of Nigerians owe Ndigbo an apology, Ikedife said.

“I do not see the reason why all these venoms should be pouring on Achebe for saying the truth. Let the truth be said and let the devil be damned.

A social critic and leader of Transform Nigeria Movement (TNM), Comrade Obi Ochije, said people should mind what they say against Ndigbo because of Achebe’s book, adding that they are aware that the author of the classic, Things fall apart, spoke the truth.

He said: “I believe that one day, may be not in our life time again, the truth of what happened during the evil war would be told.

“It is not only Achebe that saw that happened; all of us did, but because he is the only person who has the courage to say it has made it as if he has committed a treasonable felony.

“This attack on Achebe is improper and will not solve any problem, but let no one provoke Ndigbo again in this country; let bygone be bygone. People should apologise to Ndigbo for the genocide that happened.”

In a statement signed by its National Chairman, Edeson Samuel, the group maintained that Achebe committed no crime but just said the truth.

BZM posited: “This is the problem with Nigeria. If you ever say the truth, they will call you names and, if possible, demand for your head just like that of John the Baptist who said the truth about Herod and his brother’s wife.”

The group said instead of castigating Ndigbo for what Achebe expressed as his opinion, they should be grateful that Ndigbo are developing their place for them, adding: “If Ndigbo should leave, the entire West will collapse.”

The statement added: “God gave us (Ndigbo) wisdom, strength and intelligence and we are grateful to the Almighty. Your claim and comment against Professor Achebe and indeed Igbo should stop since it lacks merit, is unfounded and ungentlemanly.”

October 10, 2012
Achebe: Let the sleeping dog lie

SIR: If we don’t forget yesterday’s quarrel, we shall have nobody to play with.

The book–There was a country that the respected and popular author-Chinua Achebe just released is uncalled for, unnecessary and ill-timed. As a respected Nigerian and an elder statesman, Chinua Achebe should not have released the book at all.

The civil war has come and gone and I believe Nigeria as country has learnt her lessons. We know what happened then and even the youths do not pray for that to repeat itself again.

I am happy that the Igbo have since recovered from the war. They have businesses that are doing well all over the country. There is no where you will not find Igbo people doing what they know how to do best.

Contrary to Professor Achebe’s claim of Igbo backwardness after the civil war, Igbo people have occupied many top positions in Nigeria.

For instance, Dr Alex Ekwueme was the Vice President between 1979 and 1983; late Evan Enwerem, late Chuba Okadigbo, Adolphus Wabara and Anyim Pius Ayim have all tasted the goodies as Senate President. Charles Soludo, an Igbo man also occupied the office of CBN governor.

Ogbona Onovo once occupied the office of Inspector General of Police. Professor Maurice Iwu, former INEC chairman is a true son of Igbo.

This is just to mention a few among many top positions that the Igbos have held.

That is why I think it is unnecessary for Achebe to have released the controversial book now. The Awolowo he was blaming for Igbo predicament during and after the civil war is no more. The man who surrendered on behalf of Biafran nation, Lt. Col. Philip Effiong is no more. The Eze Igbo Gburugburu, the Biafran leader, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu is no more.

So, why blame those that are not around to defend themselves? Former Head of State General Yakubu Gowon (rtd) who is still alive is old and leads “Nigeria Prays” because he appreciates that Nigeria really need prayers.

I call on Papa Achebe and other Igbo people to let their wounds heal. Instead or writing what will fuel enmity between Nigerians, I call on Pa Achebe and other Nigerians to write more on what will unite Nigerians.

We must pull together to overcome our present challenge which is the Boko Haram. Let’s put civil war experience behind us because united we stand, divided we fall.

As General Yakubu Gowon proclaimed after the civil war: “No victor No vanquished.

•Ajiboye John Tosin

Osogbo Osun State

October 9, 2012
Biafra: More knocks for Achebe

-Blame Ojukwu too, he rejected a food window offer- Fani Kayode

Professor Chinua Achebe’s new book, There Was a Country, has continued to attract passionate reactions from critics and admirers across the country. The renowned writer had alleged in the book that blockade policy of the General Yakubu Gowan-led military government, which prosecuted the civil war against Biafra amounted to genocide.

Condemning the allegation as unfortunate, the National Secretary of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), Alhaji Buba Galadima, said, “His views that Gowon and indeed the Federal Government committed genocide during the civil war is not correct; on the contrary, I believe the government was magnanimous in the way and manner it prosecuted the war.”

Asked to expatiate on this assertion, Galadima noted, “After the war ended, Gowon made a declaration of no victor no vanquished. He also declared a policy of the 3Rs, which meant reconciliation, rehabilitation and reconstruction. That policy, to my mind, was highly successful.”

Galadima therefore, accused Achebe, of ethnic partisanship. “Would he (Achebe) have done differently if he found himself on the other side,” he asked, adding, “Governments in other countries do worse things during war times. We need to rise above ethnic partisanship and not raise unnecessary tension in the polity,” he said.

But Professor Akachi Adimora Ezeigbo of the department of English, University of Lagos, who has done extensive research on the Nigerian-Biafran civil war, said emphatically that Achebe said the truth. The author of Roses and Bullet, a novel set during the civil war said, “I was a young girl when that war was fought. And what he (Achebe) reported there is the truth. Biafra as it was called at that time was completely blockaded. So, there was no way food was coming in. And even those who tried to bring food in through the air, Nigerian planes were shooting down the planes and they tried to block them from coming in. So, it was, of course, a deliberate attempt to starve the people. I guess they did that because they wanted the war to end quickly. But, it was what was done,” she said.

Ezigbo also said, “I know Achebe’s comment is very painful. But, one thing I know is that when people write about history, they try to tell the truth or what they consider to be the truth. So, he is looking at it from that perspective.”

Former Aviation Minister, Mr. Femi Fani Kayode, agreed that the issue of starvation in Biafra, which led to the unfortunate death of millions of children, women and aged civilians, was a historical fact. “Let us be honest about this,” he said, “the policy of blockade led to death of children, women and the aged. If you merge the starvation to the pogrom of Igbos in the North before the war, only few can fault the allegation. So there is no doubt that there was an element of genocide. It is a fact, it is on record.

“But there is more to it and this is where I will fault Achebe. It is wrong for him to blame only Gowan and Chief Obafemi Awolowo for the starvation of innocent civilians during the war. Achebe should have recorded that Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu contributed to that because the Federal Government then made a proposal to open a food window so as to save civilians, but Ojukwu rejected it. Ojukwu insisted that food can only be sent to Biafra with night flights so Nigerian government, fearing that he wanted to use that medium to acquire weapons, rejected that offer. Unfortunately, Ojukwu, not considering his people, rejected FG’s proposal and only used the pathetic pictures of starving Biafran soldiers as propaganda weapon, as capturedin Ralph Uwechue’s book , Reflections on Nigerian Civil War,” he said.

October 7, 2012
Achebe: Some things are better left unsaid

Professor Chinua Achebe’s latest book, There Was A Country, A Personal History of Biafra, is bound to engender stormy controversies all over the country and perhaps beyond, for its candour, its controversial allotment of motives to the principal actors of the Nigerian civil war, and the author’s unrepentant and undisguised partisanship. The book is yet to be released to the Nigerian market, but the Guardian of London last week excerpted a short but very poignant part of the book to whet readers’ appetite and for analysts to have an idea of the book’s potency. This piece will look at that excerpt and attempt a brief foray into the eminent writer’s mind. No review of the book will be attempted until it is available.

First, here is what the publishers have to say of the book: “The defining experience of Chinua Achebe’s life was the Nigerian civil war, also known as the Biafran War, of 1967–1970. The conflict was infamous for its savage impact on the Biafran people, Chinua Achebe’s people, many of whom were starved to death after the Nigerian government blockaded their borders. By then, Chinua Achebe was already a world-renowned novelist, with a young family to protect. He took the Biafran side in the conflict and served his government as a roving cultural ambassador, from which vantage he absorbed the war’s full horror. Immediately after, Achebe took refuge in an academic post in the United States, and for more than forty years he has maintained a considered silence on the events of those terrible years, addressing them only obliquely through his poetry. Now, decades in the making, comes a towering reckoning with one of modern Africa’s most fateful events, from a writer whose words and courage have left an enduring stamp on world literature.

“Achebe masterfully relates his experience, both as he lived it and how he has come to understand it. He begins his story with Nigeria’s birth pangs and the story of his own upbringing as a man and as a writer so that we might come to understand the country’s promise, which turned to horror when the hot winds of hatred began to stir. To read There Was a Country is to be powerfully reminded that artists have a particular obligation, especially during a time of war. All writers, Achebe argues, should be committed writers—they should speak for their history, their beliefs, and their people.

Marrying history and memoir, poetry and prose, There Was a Country is a distillation of vivid firsthand observation and forty years of research and reflection. Wise, humane, and authoritative, it will stand as definitive and reinforce Achebe’s place as one of the most vital literary and moral voices of our age.”

It is unlikely anyone will question Achebe’s literary astuteness, especially knowing that he is a towering literary personality of the 20th Century. No one will also question his freedom to say the things he has just said in the book, for he felt the torment of the civil war as keenly as the worst victim, just as the publishers indicated. What with his young family that needed his protection during the war, and his involvement as a roving cultural ambassador of the short-lived Biafra Republic. In general too, Achebe was impeccable in counselling writers to take a stand on the great moral issues of the day, as he apparently did during the war, and has now done again more than four decades after. What remains to be seen, however, is to what extent he could take liberty with his understanding of the issues surrounding the war, his interpretations, his conclusions, and the underlying emotions that obviously coloured both his own worldview and his paranoid perception of the country vis-à-vis the Igbo people.

After reading the Guardian (London) excerpt of the book, I concluded this was a book he should not have written, for sometimes, the merit of a book is compromised by just one page, one paragraph, even one sentence. Because of the sentiments contained in the excerpt, which sentiments I think vitiate the force of his lofty intellect, Achebe should have left unsaid many of the things he wrote in the book. His reputation as a world-renowned writer was already secure, having written one of the 50 most influential books of all time. Why did he feel impelled to write this fateful book, one which doubtless reinforces the suspicion many hold about his private and public animosities? Achebe is a courageous writer and a principled Nigerian who felt no qualms twice spurning the honours bestowed on him by the Nigerian government. A disreputable government could not give honour to one so morally superior, he snorted. Yet, the book contains sentiments that appear unworthy of both the fame he has acquired by dint of his unequalled genius and the high pedestal upon which Nigeria, nay, the world has thrust him.

Most of the criticisms levelled against Achebe come from the Southwest. The critics seek to defend Chief Obafemi Awolowo against the motives ascribed to him by the author. I do not intend to join forces with those critics. It is enough to say that writing interpretative historical works and psychoanalysing historical personalities are not Achebe’s forte. Perhaps if he were detached from the Biafran debacle he would have been able to do a greater work. For now I am uncomfortable with a few issues raised in the excerpt. First is the fact that the eminent author showed a disturbing streak of extreme traumatisation. Forty-two years after the civil war, the bitterness Achebe nursed against both the federal side and a few of the dramatis personae in the war are still very fresh and potent. He has allowed that bitterness to endure, to retain its potency, and to colour his perception of Nigerian (ethnic) politics. I doubt whether the great Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, who was ambivalent towards Biafra, nor the man who led Biafra itself, Dim Emeka Ojukwu, retained such vitriol against the rest of Nigeria as Achebe.

Second, it is hard to know where Achebe got the statistics upon which he built his insupportable conclusions. He claims the principal targets of the war, a war he insinuates was genocidal, were two million mothers, children, babies – all civilians, apparently in contradistinction to military casualties. He inexplicably ignores the losses suffered by World War II combatants. The former Soviet Union alone lost over 16 million civilians and about eight million troops. China lost more than 10 million civilians and just over one million armed men. Poland lost about six million civilians and over 800,000 armed men. Germany, where the final battles of the war were fought, lost seven million people, about half of whom were civilians. In all, WWII cost between 60 to 70 million lives of which some 40 to 50 million were civilians. Civilians often bear the brunt of wars.

The Nigerian civil war was fought mostly in the Southeast, yet the author queries the preponderance of war dead on the Biafran side. Where does Achebe expect most of the casualties to come from? He also said the small arms deployed in the constricted Southeast region during the less than three years the civil war lasted were more than the quantity deployed in the entire WWII, which lasted over six years and was fought across vast territories. Even without counting, and looking at the scale and scope of WWII losses, it would be far-fetched to come to Achebe’s conclusions. Except the author could convince us that the more than 40 million soldiers who fought in WWII shared weapons or fought barehanded, and the soldiers who fought in the Nigerian civil war used more than 40 guns each, he could never persuade anyone that more small arms were used in the Southeast during the war. After all, Nigerian Army strength rose to only 120,000 by the end of that war. It is doubtful that Biafran troops exceeded federal troops in number.

Achebe’s latest book is unlikely to be of much value. It will be regarded as a bitter account by a traumatised man who has found it difficult to overcome the effects of the civil war. He considers as diabolical the use of starvation as a weapon of war, as if he never read any history of warfare, where sieges were designed to starve the enemy into submission. He glosses over the fact that Igbo people lived in the Southwest during the war; yet he yielded to paranoia by concluding that the purpose and methods of the war were designed to exterminate the Igbo. He connects those execrable methods, such as starvation, to Awolowo’s ambitious design for power and northern jihadist inclinations. This is guesswork.

The Guardian (London) newspaper excerpt illustrates how difficult it is for many Nigerian intellectuals to overcome the stereotypes that hamstring objective discussions of national affairs. So, who will write the history of that period, let alone teach it, when even Achebe could not overcome stereotypes nor bury the bitterness of four decades past? The great roles played by many Igbo personalities during the war are being highlighted, and many of them, including the great Zik and the charismatic Ojukwu, are being canonised. We must hope that Achebe does not take us back to our ignoble past where heroic deeds are acknowledged through ethnic prism.

October 7, 2012