The Biafran War: Revisiting the Tragedy and Responsibility for War Crimes

The Biafran War (1967-1970) remains one of the darkest chapters in African history, especially for the Igbo people of Nigeria. During this brutal civil conflict, over three million lives were lost, the majority of them civilians, including women and children who perished from starvation, disease, and direct violence. At the heart of this tragedy lies a contentious debate: Were these deaths simply the result of the chaos of war, or were they the product of a deliberate campaign of genocide? In particular, the role of General Yakubu Gowon, the leader of Nigeria at the time, is the subject of enduring controversy. Many argue that his actions amount to war crimes, calling for his persecution. But does the evidence support this claim?

This article examines the war through the lens of history, focusing on the experiences of Biafrans and their valiant resistance, while also analyzing the culpability of Gowon in the massacre of millions. We delve into historical records, testimonies, and expert opinions to unpack this contentious issue.

The Biafran War: A Fight for Survival

The Biafran conflict was not a conventional war of conquest, nor was it simply a secessionist movement. At its core, the war was a desperate fight for survival for the Igbo people. Following the 1966 coup and the counter-coup that led to the mass killings of Igbos in northern Nigeria, Biafran leaders, led by General Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, declared the independence of the Eastern Region.

General Ojukwu’s rationale for this move was clear: “The war aim of Biafra is purely to prevent ourselves from being slaughtered, nothing more… If anybody’s going to judge our success and failure in this war, it will have to depend on how much we have prevented the enemy from killing us.” This statement encapsulates the existential fear that fueled Biafra’s struggle. For the Biafrans, the war was not a matter of national pride or territorial expansion—it was a fight against annihilation.

Gowon’s Responsibility: Was it Genocide?

General Yakubu Gowon, who led the Nigerian forces during the conflict, has long been accused of orchestrating a genocidal campaign aimed at eradicating the Igbo people. The Nigerian government imposed a devastating blockade on Biafra, leading to widespread famine. The images of malnourished Biafran children shocked the world, and the phrase “genocide” began to be associated with Gowon’s leadership.

To understand whether Gowon should be persecuted for war crimes, we must examine the intent behind his actions. International law defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Did Gowon intend to wipe out the Igbo people, or was his goal simply to suppress a rebellion? Gowon has consistently denied any genocidal intent, arguing that the war’s casualties were an unfortunate consequence of a conflict aimed at keeping Nigeria united.

However, critics argue that the systematic killing of civilians, particularly through the blockade that starved millions, points to a deliberate effort to exterminate the Igbos. Some historians, such as Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe, maintain that Gowon’s actions meet the criteria for genocide. According to Ekwe-Ekwe, the Nigerian government “planned, executed, and sustained the genocide against Biafra with precision, leaving no doubt about its intent.”

The Role of International Actors: Complicity or Indifference?

The Biafran War was not fought in isolation. International powers, including Britain and the Soviet Union, played significant roles by providing military and diplomatic support to the Nigerian government. Britain, in particular, has been accused of enabling Gowon’s war effort through its supply of arms and its political backing. Despite global outrage over the humanitarian crisis in Biafra, major world powers largely stood by as millions perished.

As journalist Frederick Forsyth noted in his book The Biafra Story, “Britain was not content with selling arms to Nigeria; it participated in the bloodshed by supplying intelligence and mercenaries.” Forsyth’s firsthand accounts of the conflict reveal the extent to which international actors turned a blind eye to the atrocities being committed, raising questions about their complicity in the war crimes.

The Legacy of Biafra: Unhealed Wounds

Decades after the end of the war, the scars of the Biafran conflict remain fresh in the minds of the Igbo people. Gowon, now a statesman in his 80s, has continued to evade accountability for his role in the war. While he has expressed regret for the suffering caused by the conflict, many Igbos view his apologies as hollow in the absence of any genuine reckoning or justice.

The question of whether Gowon should be prosecuted for war crimes remains unresolved. For some, the passage of time has diminished the possibility of achieving justice, while others believe that holding Gowon accountable is essential for healing the deep wounds left by the war. As Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), remarked, “The blood of the innocent Biafrans cries for justice, and it will not be silenced until those responsible are held to account.”

Conclusion:

The Biafran War is more than a historical event—it is a haunting reminder of the fragility of human life in times of conflict and the moral responsibility of leaders to protect, not destroy, their people. General Gowon’s legacy, for better or worse, is inextricably tied to the horrors of that war. Whether or not his actions amount to genocide, the fact remains that millions of Igbo lives were lost in a conflict fueled by ethnic hatred and political ambition.

The call for justice for Biafra’s victims should not be dismissed as a relic of the past. Rather, it is a crucial step toward ensuring that the lessons of Biafra are not forgotten. If the world is to truly honor the memory of those who perished, there must be a sincere effort to confront the atrocities committed and to hold those responsible accountable.

As we reflect on this tragic chapter, we must ask ourselves: Can there be true reconciliation without justice? And if so, what form should that justice take? The answers to these questions will shape the future of Nigeria’s national conscience—and perhaps the course of history itself.

This article seeks to shed light on a complex and deeply emotional subject. It is intended to provoke thought, foster dialogue, and, ultimately, encourage a re-examination of Nigeria’s history and its path toward healing.

Ojukwu’s words resonated with the deep-seated fear and trauma that had gripped Biafra. The war had been marked by horrific atrocities, including massacres and ethnic cleansing. The Biafran people, a minority group in Nigeria, felt threatened with annihilation.

Ojukwu’s war aim was not a call for conquest or revenge. It was a plea for self-preservation, a desperate attempt to shield his people from further bloodshed. He recognized that the success or failure of the war would be measured not by territorial gains or political victories, but by the extent to which he could prevent the enemy from killing his people.

This aim was not merely a rhetorical device. It guided Biafra’s military strategy and diplomatic efforts. The Biafran army fought with tenacity and determination, knowing that their very existence was at stake. They employed guerrilla tactics and relied on the support of the local population to resist the superior forces of the Nigerian government.

Diplomatically, Ojukwu sought international recognition and support for Biafra’s cause. He argued that the Biafran people had a right to self-determination and that the war was a legitimate struggle for survival. However, his efforts were largely unsuccessful, as the international community remained largely indifferent to the plight of Biafra.

Despite the overwhelming odds, Ojukwu’s war aim remained unwavering. He refused to surrender, even as the war dragged on and the suffering of his people intensified. His determination was a testament to the resilience and indomitable spirit of the Biafran people.

In the end, Biafra was defeated, and Ojukwu’s war aim was not fully realized. However, his words continue to resonate as a poignant reminder of the horrors of war and the desperate measures people will take to protect themselves from annihilation.