I have read with great interest the article with the above title as well as other articles and comments concerning Awolowo’s role during the Nigerian-Biafran War, a fallout of Achebe’s book ‘There Was A Country: A personal Histroy of Biafra’. The intense debate and heat generated among Nigerians by this book is noteworthy. The debate thus far, has failed in substance and style especially among Achebe’s traducers, to provide alternative interpretation of the facts, or produce new facts as counter arguments. What has dominated the news and commentaries are emotional arguments that are bereft of factual and scholarly analysis.
I have read with great interest the article with the above title as well as other articles and comments concerning Awolowo’s role during the Nigerian-Biafran War, a fallout of Achebe’s book ‘There Was A Country: A personal Histroy of Biafra’. The intense debate and heat generated among Nigerians by this book is noteworthy. The debate thus far, has failed in substance and style especially among Achebe’s traducers, to provide alternative interpretation of the facts, or produce new facts as counter arguments. What has dominated the news and commentaries are emotional arguments that are bereft of factual and scholarly analysis.
In ‘Awo not guilty as charged’, the author unlike many Nigerian commentators and defenders of Awolowo did not go down the route of insult and name calling. Rather, he chose the gentlemanly way of disagreement without being disagreeable. Yet, he failed to make any persuasive arguments, with current facts or new ones in his disagreement with Achebe. Rather, he made erroneous generalizations that are not true. If one is unable to produce effective counter argument to that which has been written, one owes to himself and to the reading public to report the issues correctly (at least). I believe in the use of facts as well as accuracy in interpretation of the same. This author failed in both.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
The author in more than one place wrote about Achebe and the Igbos blaming Awolowo and the Yorubas for the failure of Biafra. Nothing can be further from the truth. Yes, Achebe spoke of Awolowo’s role during and after the civil war the facts of which are in the public domain. Nowhere did Achebe fault the Yorubas and nowhere did all Igbos fault the Yorubas or Awolowo. The fallacy inherent in that statement is exactly what a factual and scholarly debate would avoid. You may be entited to your opinion; you are not entitled to fabrication of facts! It is quite a dangerous thing to equate one man with a tribe.
The bone of contention is this statement excerpted from Achebe’s memoir ‘There was a Country’: “It is my impression that Awolowo was driven by an overriding ambition for power, for himself and for his Yoruba people. There is, on the surface at least, nothing wrong with those aspirations. However, Awolowo saw the dominant Igbo at the time as the obstacles to that goal, and when the opportunity arose – the Nigeria-Biafra War – his ambition drove him into a frenzy to go to every length to achieve his dreams. In the Biafran case, it meant hatching up a diabolical policy to reduce the numbers of his enemies significantly through starvation – eliminating over two million people, mainly members of future generations.”
From the above, it is clear that Achebe’s impression was that Awolowo was the actor with the motive and not his ethnic herd –the Yoruba. For you to write “The inference can be drawn from Achebe’s analysis and conclusions and those who support him that Obafemi Awolowo and the Yorubas were the “fons et origo” of the Biafran apocalyptic misadventure” is factually inaccurate unless in your mind Awo is synonymous with Yoruba ethnic group. Achebe was careful to say Awolowo’s intentions not the intentions of the Yoruba.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });
Calling Biafra an “apocalyptic misadventure” is also factually inaccurate if you understand even scantly, the history and reason behind the declaration of Biafra. It is the equivalent of telling a badly beaten and battered wife that her attempt to run away to safety and file for divorce is an “apocalyptic misadventure”. In the same paragraph you asserted that if Achebe had correctly analyzed and apportioned blames appropriately- and there were plenty to go round, you would have been less critical of him. You failed to recognize that Achebe was not assigning blames for starting the war, and if he were to do so, the blame will rest squarely upon the shoulders of the Nigerian military government led by General Yakubu Gowon (and his advisers) and on no one else. Achebe was writing about the prosecution of the war employing genocidal means.
Awolowo himself did not flinch during and after the war as to his role. In 1968 he said: “All is fair in war, and starvation is one of the weapons of war. I don't see why we should feed our enemies fat in order for them to fight harder."- Chief Obafemi Awolowo (Nigerian Minister of Finance, July 28th 1969). This he repeated in an interview in 1983 posted by the punch newspapers (http://www.punchng.com/news/for-the-record/my-role-in-the-civil-war-awolowo/) buttressing the fact that the Nigerian government of which he was the second in command, and the brain behind its policies pursued a policy of starvation against Biafra.
The crust of the author’s disagreement with Achebe lies in his analysis thus: “The decision by Awo to advise Yakubu Gowon to stop the supply of food to rebel forces not civilians is being completely taken out of context by Chinua Achebe. Awolowo did not give that advice to Yakubu Gowon just to starve the civilian population of Biafra as wrongly implied by Chinua Achebe. Awolowo told me he gave the advice because he discovered that all the food meant for starving civilians in Biafra were being ambushed and hijacked by Biafran troops along the way from Enugu Airport and from Uli Ihiala improvised airport and sent to the fighting troops and not to the Biafran children and babies who were suffering and dying in their thousands from “Kwashiorkor”. To prove his point he specifically told me and I confirmed that to be the truth that Biafran war commanders like Achuzia and other Biafran commanders and officers looked very well fed during the war and they did not look like they were being starved at all”.
At best, this is a regurgitation of Awolowo’s response when asked about the war in 1983. Beyond than that, it is a childish explanation of the inexplicable, an insult to the intelligence of the living. Go to Zimbabwe, Iran or Iraq of Saddam’s time. Economic blockade or sanctions rarely affect the living standards of those in power. It only affects in horrific terms, the governed. Therefore, it is disingenuous for Awolowo or anyone who assumes to speak on his behalf, to assert that the perceived robust look of certain officers of the Biafran Army was a result of hijacked food. Mugabe does not need to hijack food meant for anyone to look robust; likewise Amedinajad and the ruling Mullas in Iran. If you are still in doubt, ask Saddam. Achebe did not misunderstand the intent of the policy. When the policy is placed within the pie chart of the overall war policy, it is easy to see the intent is easy to decipher.
The author is like the proverbial blind man that was brought to the elephant. The trunk of the elephant may feel and seem like a wall, it’s only because you either cannot see the entire animal or you have isolated just that part to suit yourself. There are no arguments as to the intentions of the Gowon administration to finish the Igbos. In fact, it was a policy of extermination exemplified by this quote: “Let us go and crush them. We will pillage their property ravish their womenfolk, murder their menfolk and complete the pogrom of 1966.”
[Ojukwu Odumegwu, “Biafra”, p. 228.]. According to one of the Nigerian commanders during the war, ““I want to see no Red Cross, no Caritas, no World Council of Churches, no Pope, no Missionary and no UN Delegation. I want to prevent even one Igbo having one piece to eat before their capitulation. We shoot at everything that moves.” [Benjamin Adekunle, cited in Auberon Waugh and Suzanne Conje, “Biafra, Britain’s Shame”, (London: Tonbridge Ltd, 1969).
The one question that the author failed to ask himself is this: If the war was fought today with the same results, will Gowon, Awolowo and co be candidates for war crime trials? I suspect that an honest answer to that question will bring perspective to commentators on Achebe’s assertions.
No one doubts that Awolowo was a good man who had good relationships with others. None should equally doubt that he was a champion of ethnic politics. When good men enter the arena of politics they do things that are inexplicable and sometimes, horrible. That the good and evil are often residents of the same soul is a distinct human experience for which there is no adequate explanation. So it was with Awolowo! One’s personal relationship with Awolowo cannot replace the facts, some of which came from Awolowo himself on this issue.
Victor Nwoko (Pharm.D Candidate)
Lives in Philadelphia
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });