Osita Ebiem, Author at Israel Rising

July 7, 2016July 7, 2016

“Guidelines for Effective Propaganda” to market Biafra

My mission in writing this article is to call to the attention of all Biafranists (those who are campaigning for the freedom of Biafra from Nigeria) to the need to package and sell the Biafran message to the world through appropriate mediums. It does not matter the profession to which anyone of us belongs, I still think that each person can contribute positively to this endearing collective effort to help free the Igbo from Nigeria. I believe that these bits and pieces of contributions, if taken to heart and actually made use of, can help the Igbo to succeed in their quest for freedom and survival. In this piece we are going to talk about the use of positive propaganda in the Biafran freedom effort. We qualify the word “propaganda” with “positive” in the sense that the justness of the Biafran cause is self-evident and does not need any kind of embellishment to sell it to the world.

As will be explained in the later part of this article, part of the above heading in quotes is borrowed from the formula used by the people (our predecessors) who struggled to free the old Biafra from the clutches of the genocidal state of Nigeria. In spite of the many odds which were thrown against them, we all agree that they did a good job in fighting to liberate our people from the shackles of bondage in which they are in Nigeria. Therefore, in the present effort, we are only starting from where they stopped. As a word of caution, we repeat that “propaganda,” at least as used in this context, does not connote any negativity.

As the campaign for freedom rages on, it will not hurt if the present campaigners should borrow ideas from the pioneers. In my opinion, by so doing, it’s like borrowing ideas from experience and if we are faithful and honest, I don’t think we will go off the mark by a wide margin. As will be remembered, the Biafrans of old had among others a very effective “Directorate of Propaganda” where notable figures like Cyprian Ekwensi, Okon Okon Ndem and others performed creditably well. Biafra’s Directorate of Propaganda coordinated and oversaw the dissemination of information throughout the genocidal war period. Following closely the lessons of history is important especially in a matter such as we are engaged in.

In order to learn from history, I will suggest that we try to use more often the rearview mirror and compare notes with the works of those who had been in this business before us. The importance of references to history in the struggle cannot be over emphasized. While depending on the lessons of history by glancing often at the rearview mirror, we must not overlook the fact that all successful drivers are only those who take seriously the dangers of their blind spots. So, apart from using the rearview mirror, experience has shown that you will never become a good driver without taking time to look sideways and listen to cautionary advices from fellow travelers who may have some vantage views of the road you are on. The best way to deal with blind spots is to listen and act first and ask questions later. If you thought that you saw something at the corner of your eye, then you must have seen something, take precautionary action. What this means is that absolute caution is important. And one of the first rules of caution in this business is to listen often to the opinions of others.

To truly get our jobs done right today as the pioneers did, we must set out our goals and clearly define them. That is what the people who worked in the various “directorates” of the old Biafra did. By taking time to assess the events and accomplishments of the pioneers, I have come to the conclusion, and many of us will agree with me on this; that of all the Biafran directorates, the propaganda outfit was one of the most successful. The reason for their success was simple. They worked out of a template; they had a “guideline.” No one was a law unto their selves. Everyone’s effort was subject to the scrutiny and assessment of another. Then again, they spoke in the language that appealed to all decent and informed listeners as well as to the regular Ngbeke and Ngbafor on the streets of Enugu, London, New York and Paris. Yes, they spoke in the language of the world. They delivered their urgent and important message to the world, still tempered with respect and journalistic excellence and decorum.

I want to remind us that talking about the success of those pioneers is not based on the judgement or assessment of only those of other Biafrans; no, they were successful mostly because they produced materials and information that met both the internal and international audiences’ standards. They told the truth, pursued excellence and as well as being in earnest, they were sincere and honest.

Why did they and of course we today have to cater to both internal and external audiences? Well, the answer as we may imagine is obvious. It is because whatever message that must be passed on should make sense as well as palatable (consumable) to audiences that are total strangers to our experience and message and to those who know all there is to know about them. Whatever part we are playing at this time in this Biafran liberation effort, the overall goal should be that we are ultimately able to present a comprehensive and convincing message that is honest, sincere, reliable as well as believable. It is only after we have succeeded at this task can we truly consider to have done our job. I believe that those qualities are mostly what will get a stranger listening, to get interested, listen more and understand better our plight and become sympathetic and maybe lift a finger or more to speak and act in our favor.

Producing only messages that are parochial and appeal to a narrow segment of the general audience will only work to defeat the overall goal. It is important that we should work to capture the attention of the international community through the way we present our message. Why we should be careful and court the sympathy of the international audience can be illustrated like this; when a person is sick, very often it is only right that he or she needs to go out to seek for solution. Remaining inside the house and shouting one’s throat hoarse to listeners who are already familiar with their case and may not have all the answers does not always bring healing.

To help us in packaging an acceptable message for the international community we need to always remember that as the theme of our message: Igbo Genocide, though very painful is not unique. Other people in other places and at other times have also suffered like us. Always remembering this will help us to stay both humble as well as sympathetic with other people’s stories and whatever else they are going through. Exhibiting this empathetic attitude should not stop with appreciating the pain or concerns of others of similar experiences; we must not be oblivious of the complaints and concerns of our detractors or persecutors. We must find ways to engage even our worst enemy in constructive diplomatic dialogs at all times. The feelings of all humanity are the same, whether they are in the rank of the perpetrators of the genocide or are the victims of the crime.

Therefore, even when we find ourselves at the receiving end of genocidal injustices as it is, we are still required to look at our pain and those who are responsible through the glass of a common humanity. In the middle of man’s worst inhuman acts against the Igbo we cannot afford to lose faith in humanity. By resorting to insults and unconstructive criticisms of the enemy shows a sign of desperation. We cannot afford to despare, we must find ways to let others find their story in our own as we try to learn everything which we can from the others’ stories. Some of these others like the Armenians, the Jews, the South Sudanese and others have fought and won while others are still fighting and there are those who fought and lost. We can learn a lot from the experiences of these other people, if we tried hard enough.

What we are saying is that it runs counter to the overall aim of the struggle for Biafra’s freedom to continue producing desperate and angry messages that shock and assault what most people consider the standard sense of decency. Continuing along this path will not sustain for long the patronage and sympathy of our audience. And when we talk of the people or the audience here, who we have in mind are those whose opinions and decisions matter in situations like ours – opinion molders and decision makers across the world.

Every person who is familiar with the Biafran story will agree with me that it is possible to maintain an objective position while making the strongest case for justice in regards to Biafrans’ pains. While presenting the Biafran case in the strongest of terms, we can still respect the feelings of other people, listen genuinely to any counter argument and still not compromise the message. Listening to the opinions of other people does not diminish our points or positions. That we defend our points in a civil manner against those of others does not mean their points will automatically win over our own. Only superior arguments win always in the end of the day.

At this point let me remind us of the initial point we made at the beginning of this discussion about goal setting. Setting appropriate goals will help us to determine the methods we plan to use in achieving them. I hope that most Biafranists will agree that the number one goal which of course happens to encompass all others is the attainment of freedom for us, for our people and for our fatherland. As much as we all agree that this goal is right and noble yet from experience we also know that because a case is right does not automatically make it easy to accomplish.

Yet, achieving freedom from Nigeria may be the easy part of the game. But freedom is not going to be enough by itself. Perhaps what is even more important is how to deal with the freedom when it is achieved. In thinking about this we can only take one cursory look at what is happening today in South Sudan and appreciate the importance of pursuing peace and harmony along with freedom. The current situation in South Sudan where there is a seemingly interminable and unmanageable power struggle among the ranks of the leaders should be scarier to us than any other anticipated problems once we attain freedom from Nigeria. Thinking of this booby trap of winning often should be able to make us sober and help us to work harder at becoming more mature and civil in our dealings with fellow Biafranists by cultivating the spirit of give and take. We should for this reason discard and discourage the tendency of any one person trying to display an attitude of “I know it all” and crass insubordination. This is often mistakenly referred to as the practical display of the concept of Igbo enweze. On the contrary, it is pure distortion of an otherwise wholesome concept and an unforgivable bent to cause mischief.

If we must invoke the true concept of Igbo enweze, we have to come to terms with the fact that the concept does not recognize insubordination and the tendency to display unwholesome obstinacy based on unreason and simply to create an unruly, chaotic and primitive-state-of-nature atmosphere around all contested subjects and issues. The concept of Igbo enweze is firmly grounded in the fact of equality of all men, women and peoples everywhere. So, the true spirit of Igbo enweze makes every true Igbo person to take seriously the equality of all individuals and peoples within the Igbo society and across all societies. The Igbo while recognizing this principle of equality as a vital fundamental structure of all functional societies, work hard to preserve the structures of constituted authorities and respect the role of individual leaders who have merited their positions. Usually the Igbo owe their undivided allegiance and trust to these individuals and institutions of sterling repute and accomplishment.

The Igbo despite being entrenched in the practice of eschewing the role of an eze (king) over their dominion still accept the fact that there will always be a head over a body. (The Igbo respects constituted authorities.) The Igbo while according the head and the body their places, recognizes that the relationship between the two has always been that of symbioses – the head cannot exist without the body and vice versa. Please note that Igbo enweze contrasts very drastically with the system of unquestioning feudal worshipfulness which is practiced by most other peoples with whom the Igbo presently share the Nigerian citizenship. This fundamental difference has contributed immensely in the prevailing irreconcilable divides between the others and the Igbo in Nigeria.

Another reason why the period after freedom is very critical can easily be explained. When the people are still struggling to be free, their power base is dissipated and distributed among a wide range of stakeholders in the struggle. This is different from the condition that obtains at the post-struggle era. With freedom comes the concentration of power and authority in specific persons and institutions. Yes, it is the access to power and authority that make managing freedom harder than achieving it. For this reason, we must at this stage spend a considerable amount of time in planning ahead and practicing before time how to respect the rights and opinions of others without resorting to arbitrariness and the primitive abuse of power. In order to achieve this level of refinement in wielding power, we need to practice self-control and discipline. Leaders should always remember the fact that others are just as patriotic and may have as much talents as they do. The watchword is to always have in mind that no one person has a monopoly of patriotism.

In this vein, we must point out a nascent and very dangerous phenomenon which is becoming more apparent with every passing day. It is completely against everything which the Igbo stand for and can be nipped in the bud before it turns into an uncontrollable monster. Throughout history, the Igbo have always been wary of building any kind of cult personalities or institutions where self- or personality-promotion is valued above truth and the common good. It is expected that leaders must be humble in leadership while the people must exhibit unalloyed loyalty and creative support of those elected to be at leading positions. Such leaders are seen merely as representatives of the people and their institutions who serve only at the people’s behest. At every given time, the people are expected to be ready to point out respectfully to the leaders (their representatives) some observed dangers in their blind spots.

After freedom, the people and their representatives must be ready to function under the long established Igbo practice of symbiotic relationship between the elected and the electorate. In this sacred relationship, each recognizes the other’s existence as vital to their own being. While Biafrans are still faced with seemingly insurmountable task of liberating themselves from Nigeria’s oppression they should also concern themselves equally with the onerous task of assembling very quality materials for real state building. Such questions like what kind of state do we conceive? How do we plan to achieve a functional and progressive state that is different from the present dysfunctional and retrogressive Nigerian state? These and many other questions should occupy the mind of all those who are presently involved in the Biafran liberation struggle. In order to achieve such laudable and progressive state, it will take much effort on everybody’s part. For this reason, the best and the brightest of all Biafrans must get involved in the fight to free Biafra.

On the other hand, it will require that each of us must give up the current mad pursuit of self-promotion and projection of personal power (abilities) and interests to the detriment of the common pursuit. From start to finish each person must imbibe the spirit of teamwork and the fight for the collective interest. Unfortunately, even up till this moment some of us still think that to always disagree with the opinions of others and form as many splinter groups as possible is alright and even healthy. That is not true for many reasons but especially when we look at the present South Sudan example.

In closing, as promised earlier, I will like to give us an insight into how the old Biafran Directorate of Propaganda functioned. Perhaps taking a glimpse at the way that office worked will be helpful to the present crop of Biafranists. This insight is courtesy of Roy Doron, a neutral observer of the Biafran phenomenon. He said that: “Biafra propaganda was crafted so as to avoid portraying Biafra as another case of Africans needing a white savior. The Biafrans created an image of a modern state in the making, taking care to show only the most educated and eloquent speakers in interviews.” The people at the Directorate had a clearly defined objective. The aim was to put forth first their (Biafra’s) best foot forward at all times. Not mediocre or the second bests. Duties were distributed according to abilities and there was never a situation where one person was the gburu gburu (the everything.)

Still continuing Doron said; “Biafran propaganda machine was so well oiled and so efficiently managed that it acted like any modern marketing firm and was very adaptable to the changing military situation until almost the very end of the war. The Biafrans employed surveys, focus groups, and evaluations of their media in print and on the airwaves, to ensure that their message adhered to a set of goals that was modified every week and that these goals adhered to the “Guide lines for Effective Propaganda’ articulated at the beginning of the war that expressly set out the objectives of propaganda and how to correctly achieve them.” Given the current riotous situation, if these observations are not instructive for those involved in the Biafran liberation today, I don’t know what else would. In Doron we really have it well cut out for us and we may never need to ask for more.

To succeed both at home and abroad, the old Biafrans took great care to construct their argument and manage its implementation and were disciplined enough to follow a “guideline.” As a capper Doron summed up how Biafrans succeeded by saying that; “The message they constructed had to appeal to [the international community, as well as] the people at home, who on the one hand needed little convincing of the genocidal aims of the Nigerians.”

July 3, 2016

Map of New Biafra

Ikpa oke ani, that is mapping out the boundaries and ownership of lands, is an important function in Igbo society. In the process of doing this, a lot of factors are taken into consideration. Integrities and reputations of elders who are usually the judges and deciders are established or destroyed in land matters. Depending on how they handled land issues. Most other social functions are suspended on the days when lands are divided or contested land boundaries are scheduled to be settled and trees planted to permanently mark the extent of each contestant’s reaches and control. So, in Igbo society the people take geographical maps seriously. And if we are talking of Biafra where the Igbo are involved, (the Biafra in question is a supposedly geographical and political independent or self-governing sovereign state) then we must make every effort to define the extent and boundaries of this sovereignty right from the start.

Most of us are familiar with the Biafra map of between May 30, 1967 and January 15, 1970 (the old Biafra.) But I wonder how many of us have contemplated what the map of the new Biafra will look like. In the old map many natural Biafran geographies were excluded such as Biafra lands on the west bank of the Niger. But we know the reason why. However, as most of us will recall, many of the best and greatest Biafran war generals and heroes were from the west bank.

As we all know, the old Biafra and the Biafrans of old; the people who defined the first Biafra, did not have the luxury of time and knowledge which the new definers are privileged to have. The old Biafra was a child of circumstance which was thrust on the people by the exigencies of events and emergencies of their time. But we must acknowledge that these people performed so creditably well that some of us today have always wondered how they were able to do what they did with the little that they had. These people faced almost an entire hostile and unsmiling world, looked at it in the eyes, and did not blink. The reason is because they wanted to survive. The old Biafra in the face of all odds, became a modern model of self-defense and the best illustration of the principles of Self Determination. The old Biafra was the only option and the best option available to the people. To them Biafra was the only right thing to do.

The old Biafra remains a study in excellence and an insight into how to translate dreams and impossibilities into realities because the best and the brightest of Biafrans rallied to make that Biafra possible. The best thinkers, the best technocrats, the best diplomats, the best scientists, the best engineers, the best craftsmen, the best artisans, the best military tacticians gave to the old Biafra everything they got and turned it into the best Black African’s can-do model enterprise. In tragedy, because the best of the people came together to work for the common good and for the honor of Fatherland, Biafra became a success and a pride that today fifty years after, continues to elicit memorable and nostalgic feelings.

But the truth is that we cannot dwell in the past and reminisce for eternity the exploits and accomplishments of generations past. At the same time, we must never discard or treat lightly the great achievements of our fathers and mothers. We must always stand on their shoulders and start from where they stopped. But each generation must fight their own battles and win their own victories. This generation cannot shy away from the noise of battles or shirk from the sight of blood and expect to win accolades and laudable historical memories from coming generations. And the truth is that this generation cannot expect to win and do great things if the best and the brightest of the people continue to shy away from this task of securing freedom and a homeland for the Igbo (an endangered ethnic and religious people) in Nigeria. So long as the best and the most honorable of us continue to abandon this duty to the less gifted and the not so honorable characters among us, then the battle will be stretched and Igbo honor and prestige will be diminished. In the end, if a geographical space and sovereignty is achieved, it would have become a pyric victory and the inadvertent creation of another Nigeria with a different name.

Arapuru obodo ndi aru, obodo awo nke ndi aru. If we leave this task to the mediocre and the frustrated and uninformed, uncouth and undiplomatic activists and freedom fighters from among us, the ideals and lofty dreams of the new Biafra will become the playing field for the frustrated and the home of abhorrent mediocrity. Eventually it will become a homeland where excellence and impossible dreams are frowned at or even legislated as crimes because it is criminals and dishonest “intellectuals” who will become the legislators and the wielders of political power and authority. If the best among us should abandon this job to the less gifted as is, then the new Biafra would have been lost as the old Igbo society got lost when the Whiteman came and sold to the Igbo the idiocy of chieftaincy titles, igwe stools and that hollow mockery of human dignity and honor when every Igbo son and daughter began to refer to themselves as princes and princesses.

In Igbo society today, there are more chiefs than the Igbo as the greatest struggle has become who will go by the biggest sounding titles. Every Igbo person today must prefix his or her name with Dr., Prof., Pharmacist, Architect, Engineer, Attorney, Barrister, MD., PhD., Chief, Igwe, Bishop, etc. in order to feel relevant and shore up their self-worth anchored on nothingness. The other purpose which the title mongering serves is to intimidate the less privileged among us. But while many of us scramble for more of these empty and social-creative retardant titles we should have at the back of our mind the saying that “every chief is a thief.”

And this is historically and literally true. Historically, all those who received the European’s manufactured Warrant Chief and Igwe staff of office in Igbo land were the thieves, social pariahs, abani di egwu and all those at the fringes of the society who cared less about the people’s culture and values. Those were the people that the Europeans found useful to be able to intimidate the natives and extract from them maximum taxes and levies. The real custodians of the people’s traditional heritage and customs shunned those negative strange and disruptive emptiness. It was based on this rejection that the society which we inherited, is an Igbo society which had been turned on its head, standing shamefacedly in the midst of ill-gotten strange and unfamiliar ways. Ever since, the struggle has remained the cutthroat competition to launder those filthy dubious gains where falsehood is called truth while condemning in the same breath, the old and tested traditional principles of aka idi ocha, offor, ogu and ikenga. Our values and social norm became discolored because thieves were made to rule over us while men and women of integrity scurry and seek the paths of least resistance. Today, thieves (chiefs, igwes, Drs., Profs., Barristers, etc.) who have brazenly committed nso ani are allowed to bear rule and decide for the people what they should accept as rights and wrongs. Literally, to complete the destruction of the people, it is this kind of warped Igbo society that got subsumed into the greater Nigerian union. In the end it seemed to have made certain the final and eternal demise of Igbo’s real national and cultural identity. But by all means and at all costs, I think that the Igbo cannot afford to take this disease of hollow mockery of our true humanity into the new Biafra.

In Nigeria excellence and best practice are not just discouraged, they are punished and sacrificed at the altar of federal character and quota system. And we must choose to either carry the practice over or discard those insidious destroyers of greatness, excellence and bigness at the threshold of the new Biafra.

The new Biafra is an emergency but the emergency we are confronted with today is completely different from that of the old Biafra. Therefore, based on what we know today and the realities of our collective experiences the map of the new Biafra must include all the autochthonous and contiguous geography of Igbo land. While excluding, in the interest of assuring our neighbors and cousins around us, all non-Igbo lands and territories. We must make effort to assure our neighbors that the Igbo do not covet whatever that belongs to others, neither do they desire to lord it over other people. The Igbo rather than being driven by imperial aggrandizement of Igbo geography have always been the withdrawing types who would rather maintain and preserve their cherished republican independent democracy than seek to expand their geographical reaches and political control of others. It is this spirit that made them to lose, sometime ago to overwhelming deluge of immigrants, most of the original lands which they held in the past.

For this and for many other reasons we need to have a clear definition of the geographical map of the area we are talking about as the new Biafra. To do this, we need to produce a physical map that is based on none flimsy dreams but practical realities of who and where constitutes the new Biafra.

To achieve an authentic new Biafran map we have to bear in mind some few basic facts. Firstly, we have to accept that by the reason of the new knowledge and experiences available to this generation, the old Biafran map is unrealistic, outdated and clearly overtaken by new realities. It will be a bad dream for us to produce any map of the new Biafra that incorporates other ethnicities that are not Igbo speaking without qualifications. The old Biafran map included non-Igbo speaking areas because of the circumstances that produced the map in the first place. There was an Eastern Region which was created by the colonialists and it included non-Igbo speaking areas. Then there was only one governor for the entire region which happened to be Emeka Ojukwu. When the 1966 Pogrom took place, the other ethnic peoples as well as Igbo people of the old Eastern Region were affected. The survivors of the Pogrom ran back to the Eastern Region, which included Igbo and non-Igbo. It was under such all-inclusive affectation of the affliction that led the advocates for the then Biafra to campaign for the independence and self-determination of all the affected parties. With all the prevailing evidences it was easy for the Igbo to convince the others to go along with them in their pursuit for a new state. At first the others gladly accepted and went along with the dream. But the game would quickly change soon after. We are all familiar with this story but I am only retelling it as a reminder and to serve as a guide in our current decisions.

When it was clear that the other non-Igbo peoples went along with the Igbo in the 1967 Biafra, it was easy for the British to capitalize on that to defeat the Igbo. They had to Isolate the Igbo in the fight and once that was done it became a divided rank from within. The division further helped in the success of the siege and Awolowo’s starvation weapon policy. We need to appraise the reason behind the quick about face turn of these our neighbors: The non-Igbo areas had been agitating for autonomy and independence from the Igbo before the 1966 crisis began. Then it was easy for the British to tell Nigerians to create autonomous states for the non-Igbo peoples as guarantee and assurance that the intention of the war was to save them from Igbo domination and marginalization; hence the twelve states were announced by the Nigerian leadership. At the announcement, the non-Igbo ethnic peoples of the Eastern Region were elated with their new found power which they believed would shield them for good from Igbo people’s influence.

With that move and the reaction received, the Nigerian strategists now had to produce the Sole-Igbo target narrative in the genocide. The Sole-Igbo target narrative that was sold to the non-Igbo peoples of Eastern Region is that they were never intended to be part of the 1966 Pogrom and subsequent genocidal war. They were told that it was the Igbo who were their (Nigeria’s) problem which they wanted to eliminate. These other Easterners bought into this Nigerian story and we all know how it all came together in the end: Igbo became further hated and feared the more by their cousins in the East. That hatred has persisted to date.

With the success of this divide and conquer masterstroke, from then onwards, to the outside world and to all who cared to listen, Biafra now according to this British narrative, became an Only-Igbo enterprise. The story of the fight became the “holy” mission to liberate or save non-Igbo ethnic peoples of Eastern Region from the Igbo who wanted to lord it over them and steal their God-given resources from them. Thus, the Igbo became completely isolated and demonized as the story sounded believable to the lazy listeners. Unfortunately, fifty years after, this story has persisted and it’s not going away anytime soon. The voting pattern of 2015 Presidential election notwithstanding. We may dismiss or ignore this reality to the detriment of the future generations of our people. As for this generation, it will not matter much. The excitement and ecstasy of winning (freedom and independence) will cover the multitude of faults and inconsistences of this sloppy move and save the trouble for the future. The generation that will confront these problems will be worse off and will have to continue wasting energy and resources and opportunities they should have used to advance on trying to fine tune mediocrity-inducing quota system models and federal character appeasement compromises. If this is allowed to happen, we will be back to where we started from; a new Nigeria-Biafra.

Foreigners created Nigeria and here we are trying to free ourselves from it because they did not take into consideration the people’s fundamental differences. However, now we are being given a second chance and we may be recklessly driving along the same road which the colonialists traveled. If care is not taken, and if we continue so negligently traveling this road it might lead to unnecessary heartaches and pains. Who knows, we may be about to create a new Nigeria-Biafra. This new move will be based on recklessness, negligence and unfounded fear. Some of the fear is that Igbo cannot go it (their independence and self-determination) all by their selves. Igbo alone has a population of about 50 million. The truth is that it is a lonely world. That is if the company of 50 million can indeed be considered as lonely. But in real world, each individual or group must depend on their own inner power and ingenuity to survive and thrive. Amongst the Igbo they think that once a child is out from its mother’s womb, it is now on its “own.” So, it is expected that the Igbo can at least try, and hopefully they may make it, if they tried hard enough. They have no reason to give up and presume that they cannot make it without first trying.

However, should the Igbo try to go along with the unnecessary “extra luggage” of incorporating unwilling and incongruent partners on this trip to their new nation, they are bound to regret it. As we said earlier, it is not necessarily this generation that will suffer but further down the road, the people will pay dearly for today’s negligence. How it will happen is that Igbo population which is maybe four times the population of these other “future partners,” and because the Igbo are just as talented as the others, proportionally it will make the Igbo to seem to be dominating in all aspects of the new nation. Then there will be cries of marginalization and oppression from some of those who might want to adopt the so-called minorities statuses. These cries will in turn serve as cogs in the wheel of the new nation. Democracy is a game of numbers and because the Igbo will have more number it would appear like the Igbo are taking up every available opportunity.

The other truth which we cannot escape from indefinitely is the fact that there has not been some adequately publicized moves with concrete terms of reference, carried out to produce memorandums of understanding with these other groups. Such MoUs will clearly show how we intend to relate with these neighbors assuming we are going along to coopt them into the new Nigeria-Biafra country we are planning on establishing. The same thing goes for the issue of organizing a referendum even within the Igbo area. We cannot take it for granted that all Igbo will vote “yes” to separate from Nigeria, in the first instance. Those who have money may exercise a greater influence on the people. And those who have money may choose to go along with the old order within which they made their money. So, we must bear that in mind. It’s true that such extrapolation may be a bridge that we are yet to get to but we will surely get there and will then be required to cross it. My reason for bringing up most of these issues now is to help us, right from the beginning, to pay close attention to all the details and not take any aspect of the business of this new Biafra for granted. It is the way that we choose to define the map and the other aspects of the Biafran business from the beginning that other outside interest groups will follow. And the truth is that even foreigners will prefer that the Igbo do not drag along unwilling others into this new Biafran enterprise.

My recommendation; let’s work out modalities with these other ethnic groups, on how all the former Southeasterners can all work together to win independence from Nigeria while each group is guarding and tending their own separate national destiny and identity. We must choose to become independent from Nigeria, in the first place, as Igbo people, not along with the other ethnic peoples if they are unwilling. We may neglect this truth and take it for granted but outside partners do not see any sense in such recklessness and are not amused.

Land size does not make a nation. It is the people that make a state. Should the Igbo go it alone, it is guaranteed that they will not be the smallest nation on Earth and even if they were, what difference will it make. Nigeria’s headache, as claimed by the country, is the Igbo, not the other groups. Nigerians have always made this very clear. The Igbo therefore, must learn to depend on their selves. The compromise of taking unwilling partners on this trip to nationhood does not worth the pain. Someone once said that compromises make good umbrellas but poor roofs. In the new Biafra which we want to build, we would rather build a roof that will not just protect the Igbo from the hate and assaults from the enemy, in addition, we should endeavor to create a national atmosphere that will enable the people to unleash their creative potentials and constantly reach for the stars. Such atmosphere is only possible in a society where you don’t have to compromise everything including quality, so that “no child will be left behind.” It needs to be made clear here that we are not talking about an exclusive and closeted Biafra, no. Biafra will be open and accommodating of all shades of humanity and opinions. Yet, for the sake of progress and the well-being of all, there will be unified standards which should not be compromised in order to satisfy the quota of a stakeholder who may be unwilling to make some extra effort in contributing to improve and advance the lot of the common good.

As we round up this discussion it is important to remind us that whatever map that we finally come up with must be practical, realistic and defensible. No map that we present to the world should be based on assumptions. The present Nigeria is based on a one-hundred-year-old assumption and here we are today paying with death tolls in millions of lives as a result. Ironically, when we look at it in a more holistic light, the worst loss to the Igbo may not be the millions of deaths; killed by the genocidal state of Nigeria. Perhaps, the greatest tragedy of presumptive-maps such as those of Nigeria and others like that may be the lost opportunities of creating a progressive and prosperous society where any lives even if lived only for a brief moment were lived in a considerable level of comfort and fulfilment. A decent and dignified quality of life well lived, will always worth more than stretched out longevity of mere human existence as is the case in Nigeria today. Great and successful societies will always be the result of the harmonized social and cultural structure of the human composition of the place. If we are therefore careful today to incorporate this cautious wisdom in our planning at this foundational stage, then if in the future any of us can come back to look at the result of our today’s decisions, we will be proud to have chosen the bold and conservative path over the liberal and reckless road.

Some of us may not like to hear this next point the way it is said, but the truth is that the Igbo is not loved by all their neighbors, without exception. Today, the fad is “referendum.” Everyone is talking about it but it’s not going to be in vogue one hundred years from now. So, we must plan a nation that is based on concrete structures that will still be relevant in the next one hundred years. One hundred years ago, the fad then was the amalgamation of incongruent peoples and societies with the assumption that “we the colonialists make the decisions for them and they (the natives) will never know the difference.” However, the practical thing which I think will still be relevant in the next one hundred years is that in Africa, there can be Luxemburgs and Vaticans, and Africa will be better off and more prosperous as it is in Europe than if Austria and Germany had been made into one country. Or France and Belgium merged, or even Britain and France amalgamated into one country.

In the meanwhile, the more sensible thing to do is for the Igbo to go it alone now and in one-hundred-year time, the neighbors would have seen how we conduct our businesses and the way we run our society. Then they may elect to want to join us based on real and verifiable facts. Then each group will bargain from positions of strength to reach satisfactory cooperative union agreements. Until then, what have we got to show as it is, nothing. We are not even sure that we will succeed, so why drag along other people whose aspirations are not the same with those of the Igbo. We cannot wrap up Igbo future with those of other people as it is. Let the future generation of Igbo people which did not witness the Pogrom and the subsequent genocidal war, take that decision, guided by the conditions that are obtainable in their own prevailing circumstances.

This thing is not complicated at all as some of us may imagine. Let us in the interest of maintaining good neighborliness choose the Lone-Igbo pathway to nationhood over another amalgamated nightmare. We should not be ashamed or afraid to talk about pure Igbo interests as if the Igbo story cannot be prestigious, dignified and relevant unless it is associated and corroborated with those of other people. For the sake of emphasis; has anyone wondered why don’t the Israelis merge their state with Lebanon or any of their other Arab neighbors so they can be big and heterogeneous. That of course would have made them “more” modern and liberal but less . . . It is in this spirit of “modernity” that some people have argued that the Igbo should remain in Nigeria because Igbo economy is bigger than Igbo geography. In response we say nice try. Putting it differently, Africa should be made into a country for the Igbo so they can only conduct business in their own country.

June 29, 2016

Matthew Uzukwu’s The Nigerian Civil War

Book review by Osita Ebiem

The Nigerian Civil War: The Memoirs of an Unsung Biafran Commando, a book by Matthew Uzukwu is an important book. It is published in 2016 by Feli Publishing Maryland, USA and available at www.amazon.com for $15. The book tells the story of the Biafran War from the perspective of a Biafran soldier, John Ude who fought on many fronts against the unwarranted Nigerian war of aggression against Biafra. It is clear from the book that every Biafran soldier believed in the justness of the fight till the end – an indication that the philosophy of the war was clearly communicated to the people. To all Biafrans and by all honest definitions of the word; the war was genocide. Therefore, the fighters clearly wanted to survive a certain death. Ude and the rest of Biafran soldiers fought to stop genocide. In trying to prevent the death of a people Ude and others like him gave everything they got – their very life.

The book is a faith kept by the author who painstakingly took down notes as a high school student from the oral narrations of Ude’s personal recollections of his experiences during the war. The book is well-written and an easy-read with many pages of pictures of the principal participants in the war as well as those of many kwashiorkor victims and war refugees in Biafra. It’s a book of 166 pages that catches the interest of the reader right from start and can be finished within the space of a few lunch breaks. It is a historical narration of how Biafrans successfully used ingenuity to prosecute a war of survival and ran a functional society while going through the greatest of trials. Basic social services such as law courts, electricity, fuel supplies and the post office worked till the very end of the Biafran ordeal. It was because the post office worked in Biafra that John Ude’s life was spared at the tail end of the war when he was wrongly taken for a deserter. The lesson here is that when a society works as it should, it does not only enhance the quality of living in all aspects for the citizens, lives are often saved when it matters the most, even in seemingly unrelated areas.

Ude and all the other Biafran soldiers distinguished themselves in the fields of war and successfully prevented an intended total genocide against Igbo people. They made history. And after nearly fifty years, Matthew Uzukwu wrote to preserve the history of their courage and to inspire for all time any group of people who may have to go through a similar unjust Biafran experience. But sometimes there have often been debates about; between the soldier and the historian, who does more service for humanity. This must have informed David Ben-Gurion’s conclusion. In a tone obviously meant to disparage the historian and raise the status and prestige of the soldier above the historian, Ben-Gurion said that “History is not written, history is created.”

But there will be no history at all without the historian. If a great tree falls in the forest and no one was there to hear the fall, it would never have made any sound. At the dawn of creation, physicists believe that there was a big bang that exploded to give existence to everything there is in the universe today. The fact is that the explosion which is supposed to be the one sound that spanned the entire universe at the beginning of time did not make any sound at all because there was no sentient being to hear the sound at the time. So, history is created by the soldier but history must be written by the writer for it to even exist. John Ude did his part by fighting to prevent genocide and Matthew Uzukwu has written the story to prevent a future occurrence of genocides against Igbo people. One of the highlights of the night in Washington DC area where the book was presented to the public on June 19, 2016 was the vote of thanks which was delivered by Uzukwu’s teenage daughter Chinwe. She thanked the guests who were gathered to support the father for writing the book. For many of us who were there the vote of thanks was two ways and we could not have been less grateful.

My major quarrel with the book is in the title. Unfortunately, most Igbo scholars have fallen into the trap of accepting without any examination the fallacy sold by the British and Nigerians, of thinking of the war as a “civil war.” But the truth is that there was no civil war in Nigeria until the Nigeria versus Boko Haram war which started less than ten years ago. On the contrary, Biafra versus Nigeria war was not a civil war. The standard definition of civil wars is that the war is fought within the physical geographical confines of a state. It is usually fought between or among several contending groups in the country. But this is not the case with the Biafran Nigerian conflict of 1967 to 1970. The war officially began on the 6^th of July, 1967. That was the date on which Nigeria first fired the first bullet in the war of aggression which it waged against Biafra.July 6 date is important when proving that the Biafra-Nigeria War was not a civil war. The war was GENOCIDE. The purpose of deliberately distorting the historical facts about the war by the concerned players in the war (the British and Nigerians) is to make less the weight of the crime which they jointly committed against the Igbo.

On the 30^th of May, 1967 the people of the former Eastern Region of Nigeria exercising their fundamental human right to self-determination and independence unilaterally declared their freedom and independence from Nigeria. The step the people took was the best option that they had at the time and they had every right to do what they did. Prior to this date, for a period of about one year, starting from May 29, 1966, the government of Nigeria and its citizens unremorsefully and without relent carried out a systematic program of pogrom against the Igbo population and the other ethnic peoples of the former Eastern Region. By the time of Biafrans declaration of independence, more than 100,000 Igbo and other southeasterners had been murdered. The independent declaration was an effort that the people embarked on as the last resort. They justifiably pursued their basic human right to self-defense and right to life. By the conclusion of that war, over 3.5 million Biafrans were unjustly murdered by the Nigerian state.

The truth about the Biafran War is that Nigeria waged a war of aggression against another sovereign independent state which had been in existence for almost two months. At this point, all responsible governments and leaders would have engaged in using diplomacy and negotiations to prevent any further loss of lives.

Fifty years afterward, given all the prevailing events in Nigeria’s political space, just as Biafra was right in 1967, it has remained so up till this writing in 2016. And that is partly some of the things that the reader may not find in the book. The author also failed to address appropriately the cause of the war. There is no doubt that Igbo officers dominated the rank of those who carried out the first coup d’état of January 1966 but he should have explained to the reader more about the reasons for the coup. He should have let the reader know that the coup was an attempt to save Nigeria from the suffocating Islamic bigotry and heavily corrupt political leadership of the central government of the Prime Minister and the Premier of the Northern Region.

The writer failed to tell the reader that the coup was also carried out partly to prevent the federal government’s planned “walloping of the Western Region” and to install in power the populist Obafemi Awolowo who was then serving a prison sentence for planning a coup d’état against the government. The author should have let the reader know that Ifeajuna/Nzeogwu coup d’état of January, 1966 was carried out to prevent the federal government of Nigeria’s declared intention to “wallop” or wipe out the Yoruba people of Western Region. If the author had done that he would have in that same vein established that John Ude and all Biafrans fought Biafra War to prevent the federal government of Nigeria’s declared intention and systematic program of wanting to exterminate the Igbo whom they considered to be the source of all the problems of Nigeria.

June 26, 2016June 26, 2016

Nigeria as a Genocidal State

In spite of all apparent reality to the contrary, and for reasons just as varied as the people, there may be a few individuals and interest groups who still wish for the survival of the Nigerian state as it is presently constituted. Such well-wishers naturally are interested in seeing the country move forward in the positive direction. For some obvious reasons this much desired forward march has remained an impossible goal for about the entire span of the country’s history. Perhaps one of the most important first steps that is needed by the country to go forward in the desired direction is to find a way to unify the many divergent national, religious, ethnical and other aspiring groups which are the various strands that form the national fabric of the Nigerian country.

Involuntarily, the Igbo ethnical, national, religious and linguistic group is one of those major strands which were forced by colonial fiat to be parts of the national, etc. groups that constitute today’s Nigerian state. Within six years of Nigeria’s existence as a colonially united country crisis broke out in the new country and collectively the other groups as described above chose to attempt to exterminate the Igbo, claiming that the Igbo were responsible for the country’s many problems. Therefore, from 1966 to 1970 the new country – the government and its citizens pursued vigorously a national genocidal program of trying to totally wipe out Igbo people from the Earth as solution to Nigerian problems. At the end of the ordeal, though forced and patched up to rejoin the now badly frayed Nigerian union fabric, the Igbo emerged from this systematic crucible of hatred, shedding forever their Nigerian citizenship.

Throughout history and in all regions of the world where there has been genuine and honest response to the crime of genocide, separation has always been the only sensible response.

So, the best way to understand the Nigerian country and Igbo’s place in it is to look at it from this point of view: Nigeria as a genocidal state and its Igbo population as the victim of the crime. Genocide is the word to have in mind while responding to the question of whether the Igbo should continue to maintain their stake as partners in the colonial union known as Nigeria. Throughout history and in all regions of the world where there has been genuine and honest response to the crime of genocide, separation has always been the only sensible response. At the end of the crime, the victims are usually removed far away from the perpetrators. Separation is the only solution that permanently prevents future occurrences of the atrocities of genocide in any society (such as in Nigeria) where it has taken place.

While the international community is saying “Never Again” at the end of any genocide, it goes without saying that the only reliable guarantee that is capable of safeguarding such a promise is the shield and assurances that sovereign independent international boundaries provide for a persecuted people like the Igbo. The smart approach, as they say in Igbo, is that while anyone tries as much as possible to keep fires away from combustible gunpowder, they should also make as much effort in keeping the gunpowder away from fires.

Here following, let’s mention a few of these genocide victims (like the Igbo) who of necessity had to be separated from the perpetrators of their ordeal in order to ensure that the victims do not suffer the same fate in the future within the same place and from the same people. In Igbo tradition there are two traditional sayings which support this call for separation; 1. Igbo people believe that the cripple is not expected to die in a previously announced warfare. Due to their handicap, he or she is not expected to wait till the last minute to move away to a safer place. 2. The Igbo also believe that it is only a tree which is known to stay put and does not make efforts to escape the blows from the ax of the feller after it had been told the previous day that it would be cut down.

About two weeks ago, in the midst of threats from the Turkish government which perpetrated the crime, German legislators officially recognized the Armenian Genocide as such. Soon after the Turkish Ottoman Empire committed the genocide of the Armenians in 1915 with the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians, the Armenian people separated themselves from Turkey into an independent country of Armenia with administrative capital in Yerevan. After German Nazis committed the genocide of the Jews in Germany and the rest of Europe in which 6 million Jews were massacred, the victims had to separate themselves far away from the perpetrators. This Jewish Genocide is better known today as the Holocaust. The genocide ended in 1945 and the Jews established an independent state of Israel in the Middle East in 1948. It should also be remembered that it is the accusation of genocides that led to the breaking up of the united country of Yugoslavia into several different sovereign independent countries. The genocide of the East Pakistanis by the government of the West Pakistan led to the separation of the East from the West, where the East became an independent sovereign state of Bangladesh. The list goes on.

The genocide such as the one that took place in Nigeria against the Igbo is an institutional genocide. Most genocides are institutional crimes, anyway. In most cases it is only states that have the capacity to muster such elaborate machineries usually required to carry out such great massacres. The government as well as the other peoples of Nigeria committed the genocide of Biafrans between 1966 and 1970 in which 3.5 million Biafrans were killed. Igbo people alone made up 3.1 of the 3.5 million who died in that genocide.

The root cause of the Igbo Genocide in Nigeria is hatred. Therefore, the hatred that produced the act is institutional and not merely individuals hating their Igbo neighbors and friends. The Nigerian state as an institution is the primary source of the prevailing Nigerians’ hatred of the Igbo. Because its source resides in the institution of the federal republic of Nigeria, it will be near impossible to uproot this hatred from the Nigerian society. It will be near impossible to create a lasting atmosphere in the Nigerian society where the Igbo will be eventually accepted and allowed to exist side by side with the other Nigerians in the spirit of true brotherhood.

Institutions run as continuums therefore the established government policies, customs, norm and culture such as the society-wide hatred of the Igbo in Nigeria, run from one generation to the next. Agreements, armistices and promises such as “Never Again,” “No victors and no vanquished” and other similar lofty pledges, when they are genuinely made, can only hold for a short while in genocidal societies like Nigeria. Eventually there will always emerge the biblical Pharaoh who did not know Joseph and who sees no reason in honoring any pacts made by their predecessors. Once such Pharaohs arrive in power, the vicious cycle resumes and genocide repeats itself. Therefore, the only real solution that will permanently prevent any more future genocides of the Igbo in Nigeria is for the Igbo to embark on a Moses’ kind of exodus from the Nigerian Egypt into their own ancestral homeland in Igbo territory.

June 5, 2016

How Israel can help stop the genocide of the Igbo in Nigeria

By mid-1945 when the Allied Forces had helped to liberate the last vestiges of the German occupation of Europe and end the atrocious concentration camps and gas chambers in Auschwitz and other locations, more than 6 million European Jews had been murdered in the genocide which became known as the Holocaust or the Shoah. The extent and ramifications of this evil boggled the mind of every decent and civilized person and society around the world. But the deed had been done and the only reasonable option left for our collective humanity was this all-important resolve: “Never Again.” The international community resolved from then onwards that as a collective and as individual nations, societies and peoples around the world, we can all make efforts and contribute all we can to help prevent, stop and punish all crimes against humanity, including genocides anywhere it is taking place in the world. Today 2016, there is an ongoing genocide of Igbo people in Nigeria. And it is the responsibility of all people everywhere to help stop it and punish the perpetrators of this heinous crime.

Since the last 15 years the agitation for the reestablishment of the State of Biafra has gained traction. For most observers who remember the events that led to the declaration of an independent State of Biafra on May 30, 1967, almost fifty years ago, this current agitation does not come to them as a surprise. It has always been expected. Frederick Forsyth, the British author who witnessed the Nigerian genocide of the Igbo in the 1960s made this observation in his 1968 book on the subject; The Biafra Story: The Making of an African Legend:

“What had started as a belief was transmuted to total conviction; that they could never again live with Nigerians. From this stems the primordial political reality of the present situation. Biafra cannot be killed by anything short of total eradication of the people who make her. For even under total occupation Biafra would sooner with or without Colonel Ojukwu, rise up again.” (Emeka Ojukwu led the Biafran resistance against genocide and the often reminisced Biafran revolution.)

By the time the Igbo Genocide ended in 1970, 3.5 million Biafrans of which 3.1 million were Igbo, had been murdered by Nigerians with help from the Arab League as spearheaded by Egypt which supplied, pro bono the pilots who bombed only civilian targets in Biafra. The British government and USSR (today’s Russia being the successor state) supplied the bomber jets, the speed boats and other arms that enabled the genocidal Nigerian state to carry out an effective blocked of Biafra during the siege. Of the total deaths, more than 2 million died from starvation resulting from the economic blocked.

While the atrocity against the Igbo was going on in the west coast of Africa; in faraway New York in the United States, in the Spring of 1968, a particularly significant lone-conscientious protest of the evil took place. On the first anniversary of the Biafran resistance a young orthodox Jewish student of the Columbia University, Bruce Mayrock after writing hundreds of letters to world leaders to help stop the genocide to no avail, then chose to set himself afire on the premises of the United Nations protesting the genocide of Biafrans. He died a few hours later at the hospital from the wounds he sustained from the fire. The sign he had with him at the UN compound read: “Please help stop the genocide of 9 million Biafrans.” That sign is as current today 2016 as it was half a century ago when Mayrock first displayed it.

With the persistent state murders of Igbo people in Nigeria by government agents, the State of Israel and its citizens and other humanitarian minded people around the world today can still help to stop the continued genocide of the Igbo in Nigeria. As this is being written the government of the State of Israel continues to do business with the genocidal Nigerian state; cooperating closely with Nigeria’s security agencies as well as in other sectors of its economy. The government and policy makers in Israel can help stop the ongoing genocide of the Igbo today by boycotting all dealings with the Nigerian government. For a democratic and progressive state like Israel doing business with a genocidal state like Nigeria is nothing different from the state sponsorship of state terrorism, human rights violation and genocide. On another hand, it can be compared to any responsible or civilized state in the 1930s and early 40s aiding, abating and being complicit with Hitler’s Nazi regime in Germany.

An independent State of Biafra became inevitable in mid-1967 because of the ethnic and religious cleansing of the Igbo population in 1966 by the people and government of Nigeria. The massacre in which 100,000 Igbo and other easterners were killed between May 29, 1966 and May 30, 1967, is also known as the 1966 Pogrom. It was a government organized and executed purge of the Nigerian country through massacres, looting and expulsion of its Igbo population. This systematic elimination of a people based on their ethnic and religious classification by a national government was led by the Nigeria military dictator Yakubu Gowon. It was aimed at cleansing the Nigerian society of all traces of Igbo people whom the others had come to hate and loath for being “too enterprising, dominating all aspects of the society and unwilling to adopt the Islamic way of worship.”

After the Igbo and other easterners had been expelled from Nigeria, more than 3 million of them were displaced. They went back to their ancestral homeland, and in an effort to protect and preserve what was left of their battered lives, they chose the path of Self Determination and independence. They unilaterally declared a sovereign independent state which they called Republic of Biafra. Upon this declaration, the Nigerian state wedged a war of aggression against the Biafran state. The Nigerian state had two clearly declared intentions on embarking on that misadventure of aggression. One, they wanted to capture Biafra land for the Islamic caliphate of Sokoto and convert the oil wealth in the Biafran homeland. Secondly, they wanted to exterminate the entire adult population of Biafra and convert Igbo children to Islam.

It was these and other factors that led states like Tanzania to choose to stand by Biafrans’ decision to choose to die fighting for their freedom. After Biafra was declared independent, the State of Tanzania clearly understood that it was only an independent sovereign state, separate from Nigeria that could help stop the genocide of Biafrans. Tanzania quickly recognized and advocated for Biafra’s right to self-determination and independence. In April of 1968 the Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere declared his country’s support for Igbo survival in these immutable and timeless indisputable words:

“Tanzania has recognized the State of Israel and will continue to do so because of its belief that every people must have some place in the world where they are not liable to be rejected by their fellow citizens. But the Biafrans have now suffered the same kind of rejection within their state that the Jews of Germany experienced. Fortunately, they already had a homeland.

“They have retreated to it for their own protection, and for the same reason – after all other efforts had failed – they have declared it to be an independent state. In the light of these circumstances, Tanzania feels obliged to recognize the setback to African unity which has occurred. We therefore recognize the State of Biafra as an independent sovereign entity, and as a member of the community of nations. Only by this act of recognition can we remain true to our conviction that the purpose of society, and of all political organization, is the service of Man.”

With the current political and social events in Nigeria, and with the renewed mass killings of the Igbo by Nigerian state agents, Nyerere’s words could have been spoken in April of 2016. An independent state of Biafra is still as valid in 2016 as it was in 1966. For some Biafrans like Col. Joe Achuzia, Biafra was defeated in 1970 but was not surrendered. Achuzia as part of Biafrans who negotiated peace with the Nigerian authority at the end of the war, insists that Biafrans did not submit to Nigeria any instrument of surrender or any such thing like Biafra’s insignia and symbols. The import of Achuzia’s claims is that what Biafrans negotiated with Nigeria in 1970 was cessation of hostilities or an armistice but not the sovereignty, the right to independence and the right to self-determination of the people of Biafra.

After fifty years and with the continuation of the systematic elimination and marginalization of Igbo people in Nigeria, the time is now ripe for the Biafran people – the Igbo, to reclaim their sovereignty and independence from Nigeria. Therefore, it is necessary to note that in this renewed all-important life and death effort, the Igbo will appreciate the help and support of all well-meaning individuals and states like Israel which had gone through the same genocidal experience such as the Igbo are going through today in Nigeria. The truth is that since on the 29th day of May, 1966 the ceased forever to be Nigerians.