Ethnic and religious tensions go at least as far back, in modern Nigeria, to 1945, when Muslim Hausa-Fulani people killed 300 Christian Ibos in Jos. It was described thus: “At Jos in 1945, a sudden and savage attack by Northerners took the Easterners [Christian Ibos] completely by surprise, and before the situation could be brought under control, the bodies of Eastern women, men, and children littered the streets and their property worth thousands of pounds reduced to reduced to shambles.” A similar unprovoked attack by Muslims occurred in 1953 in Kano. Muslim clashes with Christians continued after Nigeria gained its independence from Great Britain in 1960. In 1964, the southern Christians rioted against the results of elections that they believed had been unfair in perpetuating the political dominance of the Muslim North. In January 1966, there was a military coup, led by Ibo officers, in which 30 senior political figures were killed, including the Prime Minister and the Northern Premier. In July of that year, there was a counter-coup which brought Muslim officers to power, and in September of that year, there was a massacre of 30,000 Ibos in the north by Muslims. It was that massacre that finally led Christian, chiefly Ibo, officers to declare the independent state of Biafra. The Muslims promptly declared war, and that first Biafra War lasted from 1967 to 1969, when the Biafrans surrendered. Close to two million Biafran civilians died of starvation and disease. During the war, the most important outside help given to the Muslims came from Gamal Abdel Nasser, who sent both Egyptian planes, Russian-built Migs, and pilots who repeatedly strafed and bombed Ibo villages, killing tens of thousands of defenseless villagers.
The Western nations behaved shamefully. The United States did nothing to help the Biafrans; the U.K. did even worse — it helped the Muslim side to enforce the blockade of Biafra. There was a feeling in some quarters that Nigeria had to be kept together no matter what. Nigeria was the most populous state in Africa, and if the white West helped in its dissolution, this could be seen as a blow to African pride, and a source of resentment against the West.
Biafra was formally recognised by Gabon, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Tanzania and Zambia. Other nations, which did not give official recognition, but provided support and assistance to Biafran civilians, included Israel (which also supplied — the only nation to do so — significant military assistance), France, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Rhodesia, South Africa and Vatican City. Biafra also received aid from non-state actors, including Joint Church Aid, Holy Ghost Fathers of Ireland, Caritas International, and U.S. Catholic Relief Services.
It was not enough. The Biafrans lacked weapons of all kinds, while the Muslims were well-supplied with the national army’s weapons, the Nigerian Army having been mostly Muslim-officered. Those Egyptian planes and pilots terrorized the Christians. A most shameful aspect of British policy was the blockade that Great Britain helped the Northerners to enforce against Biafra, leading to mass starvation of Biafran civilians. What were they thinking in Whitehall? The policy may have been based on pure self-interest: all of Nigeria’s oil was in the south, in Christian-populated regions. The longer the war went on, the more likely it was that Nigeria’s oil production would plummet because of destruction to wells, pipelines, refineries. Great Britain thus had a stake in bringing the war to a quick end. But the British chose to hasten that end not by helping Biafra gain independence, but by aiding the Northerners to crush the nascent state. The British did not then realize what a moral and military mistake it had been to take the Muslim side against the Christian Biafrans. After all, had the British militarily helped the Biafrans, for example by shooting down the Egyptian Migs that strafed Biafran civilians at will, and had broken, rather than aided, the Northerners’ blockade of Biafra, they might have brought the war to just as quick a close, but with a Christian victory. And then the grateful Biafrans would have invite the British troops in to secure the oil fields and pipelines in the south, and kept the oil flowing. Tens of millions of Christians would have been rescued from Muslim domination and persecution. Such a victory would have been of great symbolic value, might have heartened other Christians in Africa, who were alarmed at the inroads being made by Islam. Instead, the Biafran loss in a war, which few in the West remember, testifies to the pusillanimous abandonment of the Christians by the West, as the major powers either took the Muslim side, as did the U.K., or remained studiedly uninvolved in the conflict, except for some deliveries of humanitarian aid. There was no media outrage over the mass deaths of Biafran civilians. Only two Western reporters wrote sympathetically and at length of the Biafrans — Frederick Forsyth in the U.K. and Renata Adler in the U.S.
After two and a half years of war, during which almost two million Biafran civilians died from starvation caused by the total blockade of the region by the Nigerian and British governments, Biafran forces, under Nigeria’s motto of “No-victor, No-vanquished,” surrendered to the Nigerian Federal Military Government (FMG). The Biafrans had no doubt that the war waged against them had been a “Jihad.” That was what the Biafran leader, Colonel Ojukwu, called the Muslim military campaign in his 1969 Ahiara Declaration. In the fifty years since the end of that war, there has been a steady spread of Sharia in the northern states. The easygoing, syncretistic Islam gave way to a harsher, more orthodox version, no doubt partly the result of Saudi-funded mosques, madrasas, and imams. In the last few years, there have been many attacks on Christians living in the north and center of the country. There has been, destruction of churches, kidnapping of Christian girls (Michele Obama’s “bring back our girls” did not bring them back), murders of Christian villagers. What the Biafrans feared might eventually happen if they were forced to remain in Nigeria has in fact happened: the renewal of Jihadist attacks on Christians, the steady encroachment of Muslims on Christian lands in central Nigeria, the gradual weakening of Christian influence in the corridors of corrupt power in Abuja.
Christians who live in central and north-central Nigeria, that is, outside the Christian-dominated south, are again the object of Muslim attack, from both the largely Hausa terrorists of Boko Haram and from the Fulani semi-nomadic herdsmen. If the Christians in the south were to again attempt to establish an independent state, as many wish, a Biafra Redux, a refuge for coreligionists from all over Nigeria, how would they fare? What could be different this time?
Certainly the British government, whether led by Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt, would behave differently than it did during the First Biafra War. After 35,000 Muslim terror attacks since 9/11, and especially after the many Muslim terror attacks in the West, that is, the U.K., Europe, and North America, no British government would now help Muslims suppress Christians in Nigeria, as it did by helping to enforce the blockade of Biafra in the first Biafran war. Were the Northerners to again receive outside help from fellow Muslims, as they did during that first war, with those planes and pilots sent by Egypt’s Nasser, the British might now supply weaponry to the Biafrans, perhaps even including ground-to-air missiles and aircraft. And Israel, which did send some weapons during the first Biafran War, might be sympathetic to pleas for similar help against Muslim aggressors trying to crush the self-determination of Nigeria’s Christians. Under a Trump Administration, though not a Democratic one, it is no longer fanciful to believe that American military aid might be sent to the Christians. Other countries in Europe that sent humanitarian aid to the Biafrans, such as France (which did send some obsolete weaponry and French mercenaries to aid the Biafrans) and Spain, might now be willing to send military aid. It would not be a repeat of the previous war; Europeans have learned a good deal about Muslims in the half-century since the first Biafra War, and few will now want to to abet Muslim aggression by abandoning their fellow Christians. The Israelis, who greatly sympathized with the Biafrans, did send them modern weaponry in the first war, and would certainly be willing to help them again, with training and updated weaponry, including drones.
There is already a clandestine Christian independence movement in the south. Radio Biafra broadcasts daily, with tales of a once and future Biafra. Young Ibo men have been recorded in the last two years chanting in street protests, not just against the Muslim President Muhammadu Buhari, but for “Biafra” and “independence.”
Things might be different now if the Western powers see Biafra Redux as a justified attempt by the Christians to end their persecution and murder by Muslims. In the last few years, there have been so many attacks on the Christians by Muslims — the kidnappings of girls who become “wives” and sex slaves, the burning down of churches, the destruction of Christian villages and the killings of Christian men, women, and children — not just by Boko Haram, but by mainstream Muslims who are only following the Qur’anic commandments to fight and to kill the Infidels, that independence again seems like the only solution that will ensure the safety of Nigeria’s Christians.
Economically, Biafra could easily be self-sufficient. All the oil of Nigeria is in the Niger Delta, in the Christian-dominated south. That oil would continue to be exported, just as it is now, through pipelines to the coast, and then to waiting tankers; there would be no need to ship the oil through enemy territory. The only change would be that the oil revenues would now belong entirely to the Christians, under whose land the oil reserves are located, instead of having the lion’s share go to the politically dominant Muslims. The Christians may even decide, in order to ensure that the Muslims accept the war’s outcome, to offer them a cut of the oil revenues.
An independent state of Biafra, well-armed and financially stable, would deal a blow to Muslim ambitions in Africa, would give heart to other Christian groups that have felt abandoned by the West, and put a dent in Muslim triumphalism everywhere — including that found among the tens of millions of Muslims now living in Europe. It would be a stirring example of how to roll back the Jihadist tide. Fifty years on since the first Biafra War, with many lessons having been painfully learned about Islam and the Jihadist imperative, this time the West can do what not only makes geopolitical sense, but also happens, at least as importantly, to be right.
Lloyd Miller says
I recall Biafra and there was considerable support among Conservatives. HOWEVER, I don’t recall it ever being explained it was Muslims vs. Christians back then. Just like it wasn’t mentioned that Idi Amin was a Muslim. Muslims were allies of the West against Communism back then. What is the excuse now?
PPP1 (@Phlavianus) says
my recollection is the same; of course in those days we were dependent on ‘reliable’ sources like the BBC for our news…it was portrayed as a wanton attempt of Biafrans to break away in order to keep the oil profits and never as an issue of muslim vs christian. I sadly fewr the same outcome today…
James E. Horn says
Historically, the Biafran tribe is considered inferior to other tribes in the area. When the Moslem slavers rounded up and sold millions of Africans into slavery and shipped them to the America, those slaves were Biafrans.
mortimer says
Nigeria is too mixed up to unravel it and ethnically separate people. If the Muslims don’t drop their Sharia supremacism, they will again plunge the country into a lengthy, costly and ruinous civil war. Hundreds of Muslims leave Islam in Nigeria every week because they are tired of the vicious backwardness and stupidity of Islam and its moronic, pointless teachings.
Islam is the reverse of the Midas Touch and many Muslims are seeing this today.
Lloyd Miller says
Hmmm? Really? Sources? World Conquest is not pointless.
Avenger says
You are a master of taqiya Mortimer. You should be banned from JW.
gravenimage says
I believe that Mortimer is being far too optimistic here, but claiming that Mortimer–a staunch Anti-Jihadist–is practicing Taqiyya and should be banned is just grotesque calumny.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, most Nigerian Muslims heading for the West are not doing so because they are rejecting Islam, but because they want to spread it.
Westman says
I’m not completely certain about that. It seems more logical that they recognize Muslim governments are, and will always be, failures in a modern age, and want a better life. Yes they bring a terrible religion with them, however, it may not be the prime motivator.
gravenimage says
Westman, as you know Muslims are taught to spread Islam–through Da’wa or violence–and many of them do just that.
John says
Interesting article. I dated an Igbo woman for three years whose mother was involved in the conflict. She smuggled food to the starving people on the other side of the Niger River, which was a criminal offense. A nephew who had gone to live with relatives in Biafra was never heard from again; suspicions of cannibalism. Miserable times. Anyway, the article is food for thought. . . .
gravenimage says
Thank you.
janwog says
So the British Gouvernement was already a shameful Dhimmi State at that time.
Angemon says
But would that be enough to overcome the “good old-fashioned public-shaming” of being acused of “neo-colonialism”?
KWJ says
Britain didn’t even help the white farmers being murdered in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and they held British passports. Tony Blair, I guess, didn’t want to appear helping white people and weren’t letting them go to the UK.
Britain also downplays the white farmers in South Africa as they have some reason to be supporting the socialist regime.
The media downplays Nigeria’s issue of Muslim vs. Christians and says it’s just about land and farmers.
I think Christine is too optimistic. I see no indication that Britain would help the Christians when they aren’t helping them anywhere else. They’re probably waiting until they get more massacred and deal with the Muslims and their oil. Western powers do not act with morality nor avoid past mistakes. If they helped the Christian southern Nigerians they’d probably get accused of waging war against Muslims and the Saudis would threaten them with money.
Secretary of State Pompeo announces sanctions on Myanmar for treatment of the Jihadi Rohingya but not sanctions on Nigeria for the repeated massacres of southern Nigerians. A friend in Iran said Myanmar was doing the right thing to get rid of them. That doesn’t mean inhumane abuses are OK but it’s like the Philippines with Muslims wanting separate states. Some Muslims in Australia have even said that. This is a cancer of huge proportions and the West is aiding the wrong people, obviously, it’s certainly not helping to solve the problem.
CRUSADER says
30 million Christians subjected to heavy persecution….
— OpenDoorsUSA
==============
Churches are facing vigorous discrimination in America
by local governments with municipal zoning codes to
prevent Christian organizations from using their own properties
for religious activities and education — literally pushing effectiveness
of churches out of towns….in America !
— Jay Sekulow
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Save the Persecuted Christians :
https://savethepersecutedchristians.org
jewdog says
They better act fast. The Elizabeth Warren administration won’t be too sympathetic, especially if Ilhan Omar is Secretary of State.
gravenimage says
The Once and Future Biafra? (Part 2)
………………..
The Jihad in Nigeria continues.
Eric Jones says
No Biafra should not break away from Nigeria. The key is to cut off the funding for Boko Haram which comes from Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf states and Turkey. Large western sates such as Canada, Britain, France and the EU must stop behaving as dhimmi’s to the Islamist. This is a global conflict, Nigeria is just one of the battle grounds. It takes strong nation states to stand against the global jihad.
The 1964 Biafra conflict occurred while i was in high school. I sent money I made from a part time job I had to aid the starving people in Biafra. This was my first political act. I am 71 now and i view things more comprehensively. The media at that time portrayed Biafra as an ethnic conflict in Nigeria. Islam was not mentioned at all. May Christianity prevail.
Eric
gravenimage says
Boko Haram is not the only problem–as you know, they were not around in the ’60s and ’70s.
b.a. freeman says
it would indeed be nice if the biafrans were able to escape the clutches of the ummah, who, like any gang, rob, rape, and murder their victims. mr. trump *might* come to their aid, but he might instead try to broker a “peace.” the leftists in the state department would not sit idly by while one of the home countries of its proxy army here in the u.s. was defeated, nor would the brownshirt congresscritters, so we can rest assured that any help from the u.s. would be *extremely* slow in coming. i’m sure the leftist liars would have *lots* of excuses, too. thus, unless all, or at least most of, the non-muslims in the nigerian army desert and form the body of a new biafran army, i fear that we would see a repeat of the slaughter of the 1960s.
Tony Naim says
Nigeria is populated by 3 main tribes: Hausa, Yoruba and Ibo. The Biafra war was primarily a tribal based war, even though most Ibo are Christians and most Hausa (but not all) are Muslims. The Yoruba are almost split 50/50 between Christians and Muslims.
The Yoruba tipped the balance internally by siding with the Hausa during that war. Mostly because they , like the Hausa, wanted to benefit from the newly discovered large reserves of oil in the East of Nigeria which is Ibo controlled.
That was then, but now Nigeria is being affected by the same global trend of Islamic spread, that is affecting the West. Radical Islam, Shi’a and Sunni , is spreading everywhere.
Only a fool will disregard that reality or will not deal with it.