REVISITING BIAFRA: STARVATION AS A STRATEGY OF WARFARE

By Damian Ajayi Esq.

 

Was there really a Genocide?

I think it’s imperative to balance the narratives and numerous literatures on the civil war in Nigeria from 1967- 1970. Perhaps if that task is impossible then contributing to the available discourse, will further enrich the literature and text on the subject which continues to be a dark period of past and a scar on our present. It’s been over 50 years since the civil war in Nigeria, but so much from it hold us down as a Nation. It was a civil war and not genocide as people have opined. The narratives showed that it was Late Colonel Ojukwu that announced secession from the Federal Republic of Nigeria by
declaring the Republic of Biafra on May 1967 without due process of law and against the approval of the Supreme Military Council wherein General Gowon, Late Colonel Ojukwu and other top Military officers were members.

The land that the Republic of Biafra claimed in the East and South of Nigeria included the oil wells in the Niger Delta. “Since Nigeria’s only oil refinery was in Port Harcourt, in Biafran territory, the outbreak of the civil war in 1967 meant oil companies had to make a political decision as which of the rival authorities they will recognize, Biafra or Nigeria and to whom they should pay taxes and royalties”. Succinctly it is fair to examine the motives, actions and omissions of the officers that initiated the first military coup of Jan 1966 and the justification for the assumed and perceived ethnic biases as one of the causes of the counter coup in July of the same year.

The fact that Late Major General Aguiyi Ironsi was an Igbo, like so many of the coup-plotters, and that he failed to punish any of those who had overthrown the constitutional order, strengthened ethnic perceptions. Furthermore “…his major blunder was Decree No. 34 announced in May 1966 which abolished the Regions and replaced it with a unitary government and Republic gave way to the July counter coup of 1966 championed by the Northern elites”( Stephen Elis, This Present Darkness, A History of Nigerian organised Crime, C.Hurst and Co(Lon) 2016. p.83). This heightened the tension and suspicion among various stake holders and party loyalists who were already divided along ethnic lines . Accordingly, there were unilateral resolutions to agree on certain issues at the Supreme Military Council before any of the members or regional military Heads or Governors took a decision with respect to the regions amongst other issues. Events unfolding within that period and most importantly the interpretation or misinterpretation given by parties to the Aburi Accord in Ghana, prompted Late Colonel Ojukwu to declare the State of Biafra in 1967 which prolonged till 1970 when the Biafra forces surrendered. It was indeed a terrible time that plagued our nation.

Central to this discourse is starvation and blockage of food supply as strategy of warfare and if food blockage against the enemy during war may be permissible or justified given the circumstances in military warfare and under International law and guiding principles of strategy and warfare.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines Starvation has an act or instance of starving. Starving is further defined as, “To perish from lack of food; To suffer extreme hunger”
According to Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the 1998 ICC Statute, Starvation as a means of
warfare is seen as “[i]ntentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions”constitutes a war crime in international law.

“It is important to note that there is no specific prohibition in Hague Convention IV 24 1907 on starvation as a means of warfare beyond any prohibition implicit in the general principles of military necessity, humanity, chivalry and the broad language of the preamble”. Any implicit prohibition requires the delicate balance of the principle of military necessity against principles of humanity”

Article 22 of the Regulations annexed to Hague Convention IV of 1907 states that “the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited,” It is safe to say that none of the means specifically prohibited in Article 23 specifically prohibits starvation as a means of warfare. Some scholars have however argued narrowly that, Article 23(g) which states that “it is especially forbidden… to destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war” might be interpreted as prohibiting seizure of foodstuffs and starvation as an adopted strategy of warfare.

Historically, Starvation has been used as a strategy of warfare from time immemorial. France in 1885 blocked the supply of Rice to China during hostilities between the two countries. American history have shown that starvation as a warfare strategy was used in the American civil war between the Confederate in the South and the Union. Britain used it against Germany in World War 1. This blockage of foodstuff was to force Germany to make terms and sue for peace. This strategy was also employed by USA, Britain and France during the Cold War era against Germany and other Socialist/communist countries in Europe.

There are moral questions raised about the starvation of children and civilians in war and it is adding to the growing jurisprudence on international law and guiding principles of warfare. On the other hand is the argument about the distinction between combatant and non- combatant forces. This argument may be not be valid “…when we put into consideration the concept of modern war as total, in the sense that military capability is just as dependent upon the role of the civilian in the economy of a modern state at war as it is upon the soldiers in uniform.” George Alfred Mudge opined further that, “Whether the distinction is valid within Biafra is a reasonable question, and it is difficult to argue that the refugee camps contribute significantly to the military effort. On the other hand it is at least
arguable that food provisions ostensibly provided for refugee relief might be consumed by members of the armed forces. It also arguable that as in the case of modern warfare so in extremely primitive warfare, the distinction between civilian population and the armed forces is not valid”. Hence it was within this conception that, Late Anthony Enahoro, Federal Commissioner for Information and Labour said “starvation is a legitimate weapon of warfare.” At the time of the civil war in Nigeria, Nigeria had not ratified the Genocide Convention and the violations expressed as crime against International law
in the Genocide Convention can not be said to be binding or applicable to Nigeria.
It is note worthy that numerous Nigerian soldiers and civilians were killed by Biafran soldiers. The border towns and villages in between Nigeriaa and the declared Biafra suffered great casualties in the hands of the Biafra advancing in triumph in the first year of the war. In his works, Tekena Tamuno captured the suffering, sacrifices and deaths of minority groups and civilian populations (in Delta, Edo, Rivers, Akwaibom etc states) caught in the geographical space btw Nigeria and Biafra. Recounting
history helps us acknowledge where we got it wrong so we can truly heal. The “No victor No vanquished” declaration by Gowon was highly commendable.

THE IMPASSE BETWEEN THE FEDERAL MILITARY GOVERNMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON RED CROSS.
The International committee of the Red Cross(ICRC) in 1968 affirmed that Gowon’s Government in line with Article 3 and Article 23 of the Geneva Convention was willing to allow food supply to the civilian population but on its terms which was by road. This was rejected by Biafra which insisted otherwise. Its is within this line that the ICRC submitted…”The Federal Government insisted that the supplies must go through the blockade by road and stated that the Enugu and Calabar landing strips would be available to the ICRC for the transport of relief goods to the place where they would be allowed through the blockade. In addition, measures would be taken to protect the lorries. General
Gowon added that action on such a scale should be approved by the Biafran authorities and given corresponding facilities by them”.(See International Review of the Red Cross, July 1968. p.156) The activities of the ICRC was suspicious because of rising rumorsthat some European States had empathy for the Biafra struggle. It was rumored that there might be foreign collaborators disguising as members of the ICRC and they were press releases expressing rumors that NGOs and ICRC were using their jets and planes to supply arms to Biafra. Though this was widely denied by ICRC but the Federal Military Government of Nigeria remained suspicious of the activities of NGOs and the ICRC especially because
the civil war was prolonged than expected. “Relations between the ICRC and the Federal Military Government deteriorated throughout the summer of 1969. In late May, Swedish Count von Rosen led a small group of Swedish and Biafran pilots in a raid on the Nigerian airport at Port Harcourt and destroyed a number of Nigerian planes…Relations between the ICRC and the Federal Military Government deteriorated which led to Dr. August Lindt, the then General Commissioner of the ICRC for West Africa, being declared persona non grata by the Nigerian government”.International law has developed in variousstrength and capacities since 1970 and Nigeria has ratified a lot of conventions upon which it may he found liable of international crimes if the situation is to happen today. Nigeria is also a state party and member to various Protocols, Associations, Agreements
Conventions and understanding at both Regional and International levels that may make certain obligations applicable and binding. Amongst these protocols are the Malabo Protocol of 2015, International Humanitarian Law, additional protocols on the Geneva convention 1977, Customary international Law, The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, The African Union charter, International Human Rights Laws and instruments binding on Nigeria etc

IGBO MIGRATION AND SETTLEMENT IN LAGOS
Before the 192Os “there were few Igbos in Lagos and they settled mostly in Ajegunle and Apapa area of Lagos State, Nigeria. By the 1960s, they had overtaken the Urhobos not only in population but in the houses built in that area”. “The civil war gave a boost to Igbo population by 1970s. Having lost much of their properties both at home and in other places as a result of the civil war, the Igbos moved into Lagos in large numbers”. “While some of them engaged in petty trade, others came as laborers or took to some degrading ventures which the earlier groups could not have undertaken. Those who had no capital for trade began to carry loads with wheel barrows”. Decades after Nigerian civil war,It is healing that the Igbos have gained economic prominence in Nigeria. Today they dominate trade,
industry and commerce in Nigeria contributing the highest GDP per ethnic group to the economy. In Lagos which is the commercial center of West Africa, the Igbos have multiplied their wealth by over 700 percent since the end of the civil war. After the civil war, there was a huge influx of Igbos to Lagos,though the consequences of the civil war were hard on them and on everyone else, they have been able through hard work, diligence, perseverance and collective entrepreneurship to build humongous
wealth and commerce. It is generally remarked in Lagos and other capitals in Nigeria, that it is hard to find a street beggar that is Igbo. Some have jokingly opined, that anywhere you go and you don’t see an Igbo man doing business, don’t reside there. . They used to be street hawkers and beggars after the civil war but now they have built an enduring economic legacy through commerce and trade. Their prosperity in Lagos, Abuja and other places in Nigeria supports my submissions. This is indeed impressive and a model for economic prosperity for all Nigerians especially when we remember that after the war many of them were hawkers and beggars in Lagos trying to survive. So there is a lesson
for us as we heal from the mistakes of the past in building a great nation.

SUMMARY
It is heart-breaking therefore with rising dismay to watch the news updates of how the prosperity and legacy of the Igbos are being threatened or shattered by the clamor for secession and self determination in 2021. It is pertinent to note that the clamorfor secession or any legitimate agitations must be done within the ambit of democratic structure, law and order. It is imperative to admonish all Nigerians from all ethnic nationalities that we should learn from our past because a great nation lies ahead if we can forge ahead together in that hope and promise. We have come a long way together and whatever the issues and grievances, we can overcome it together in peace and unity.
#STOPTHEKILLINGS4ONENIGERIA#

 

Damian Ajayi Esq writes from [email protected]