Hi Everyone:

A friend told me about your forum and I decided that it will be a great place to get some input on this subject matter.

Below are two links to information regarding the World Conference Against Racism,
Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, to be held in Durban, South Africa from August 31, 2001 through September 7, 2001. We should be interested in finding out whether and how Nigeria is participating in this conference. What issues are important to Nigeria at the conference, and how are those issues being addressed ahead of the conference. Also, feel free to discuss the US position. The US position on the conference includes that it won't participate if the documents for the conference talk about:

1. zionism = racism
2. reparation for slave trade (they are willing to compromise on this if the words reparations, compensation, etc. are not used)

Also, they don't want to talk about slavery being a violation of human rights or calling it a crime against humanity. They only want to say that it was heinous. What do you think?

The Israeli position on the conference includes that it won't participate if the documents for the conference talk about:

1. zionism = racism
2. any other human catastrophy (e.g. Slavery) as “holocaust. Israel insists that the word “holocaust” must never be used to refer to any event other than the Jewish holocaust. They fear that such use could dilute the significance of that catastrophy.
http://www.un.org/WCAR/ http://www.unhchr.ch/html/racism

The conference is supposed to be about equality, justice, and dignity. I am interested in a forthright discussion of this topic. Some participants in the conference will be looking at your comments for information. I understand that you have renamed the country BiafraNigeria. Feel free to use that term in your comments.

A warm welcome to BiafraNigeriaworld. Please feel at home in our midst and be as forthright as possible in all your contributions in this board as we pride ourselves with being at the fore front of Africa's quest for respect of human rights and freedom of expression.

Like they say, fasten your seat belt as the ride does get very bumpy out here and the debates can get quite heated up. Be warned!

I shall be making my input later on this subject, and hopefully, I shall tell you what my immediate constituent would want included in the agenda.

Once again, welcome to BiafraNigeria.

Cheers,
OU

Welcome to Biafranigeria. The topic of your debut indicates that you are a concerned human being for the freedoms and rights of all God's children. For starters, the name "Biafranigeria" is for members of this forum, and other well meaning folks from the eastern part of Nigeria a stop-gap measure to the full actualization of Biafra. The reason for this board, and for Biafra is for the very reason the conference you mentioned is being organized.

The world likes big conferences, where the continued utter falsity and duplicity is perpetuated. Take Nigeria for example, calls for a national conference to discuss its union of over 250 different nations that make up Nigeria has fallen on deaf ears. The simering problems of human rights, group rights, freedom of speech, and the rule of law has remained intractable in Nigeria. The only time you'll hear the United natiions dealing with it, is when it deteriolates into anarchy or blood bath.

On the same token, why can'nt the people of the United States have an honest open conference on the issue of racism and slavera reparations. Deal with it once and for all. It cannot be dealt with by passing unenforcable laws, a nation cannot legislate issues that emmanate from peoples hearts. This is why I think that big conferences are a waste of time, and are never fruitfull. Why the pre-conditions, its only the party that fears the outcome of conferences, that issues pre-conditions to attend.

Why could'nt the nation of Isreal have a true conference with their Palestinian neighbours. True the Jewish people has been persecuted for many many years, but for a peacefull co-existence with their neighbours, Isreal has to be open, and truthfull with the Palestinians. The Palestininans ought to be forthright with the Isrealis also.

Biafra when actualized will seek the best relationship with her neighbours, in exchange of trade, students, diplomats and general good will. The only thing that Biafra wants is to be let alone to develop as it can muster the resources for.

As for the Jews and their Arab/Muslim neighbors. I think the Arabs should stop fighting the Jews 'cause they'll never islamise them. If the people of Isreal were muslims the palestinians or whatever they call them won't be shouting and causing chaos in the Middle East. They and the Egyptians, and other muslim nations were the ones who started the whole thing first by declaring war against the Jews but unfortunately for the Jihardist arabs they lost the war. Kudos to the Jews.

I don't care about what happens to them. They are the trouble makers. If they want war they can go and get weapons and start fighting. Ofcourse in the end they'll be the losers. We know what the Egyptians and their Arab brothers did to our people during the civil war so nobody should expect any sympathy from me. The Jews have suffered enough. In Sudan the Arabs are out there killing and maiming innocent Africans because they don't want to be muslims by force. Who gives a damn about what happens to them.

Firstly, I wish to express my profound gratitude for the opportunity you have so graciously provided for members of this forum to make inputs to the tentative agenda of such an important conference.

I crave your indulgence to bring to your notice a highly disturbing pattern of behaviour carefully observed and recorded over time in the dealings of the developed nations with our nation, BiafraNigeria. Having lived in a developed country( the UK) for more than a decade, I've come to the conclusion that there are double standards in dealing with confirmed murderers(serial killers) who are deemed as a threat to the rest of humanity. Here in England for instance, serial killers are disarmed and locked away in jail, but alas a civilised country like England(and others) have always found it in their hearts to supply weapons to the genocidal mob in BiafraNigeria and some other impoverished countries who unleash mayhem on their fellow Africans.

In the months of May, July and September 1966, serial killers(some in top Government positions) from the Nigerian half of BiafraNigeria ran amock with a view to obliterating the Biafran half of the country out of the face of the earth. Below is an excerpt from the report of an international commission of jurists on the atrocities:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“It is pertinent to observe that the Atrocities Tribunal found as a fact that the Northern Nigeria authorities with their collaborators had devised a seven point program aimed at a complete extermination of the then Eastern Nigerians (now Biafrans) in Northern Nigeria and other parts of the federation. The program is outlined as follows:

1. (a) to kill off the Major-general and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, T. J. T. Aguiyi-Ironsi;
(b) to kill off all Yamiri (Igbo) Army officers;
(c) and subsequently purge the Army of Yamiri by killing the rest in the ranks.

2. With the aid of the Westerners in the army, to take complete control of the Armed Forces, the Police and the Navy and to purge off the Yamiri in these forces too.

3. To kill off and dispossess all the Yamiri domiciled in the Northern region.

4. To use the control of the Armed Forces to take control of the country’s Government.

5. To revenge Sarduana’s and Abubakar’s death by killing Dr. Zik, Dr. Okpara, Ojukwu and Major Nzeogwu.

6. To destroy Port Harcourt, Enugu and the University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

7. To kill all
(a) Yamiri in top civil service posts;
(b) all wealthy Yamiri - male and female;
(c) all Yamiri educational giants;
(d) all grown up males and females of Yamiri;
(e) to leave out only sucklings in yamiri land.
(Tribunal Report pp. 133 - 134)”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again, the nobel laureate professor Wole Soyinka one of this UN segment Ambassadors of goodwill captures the situation in these words:

"The ATROCITIES were so public even in the South (Lagos).... ...executions and torture... were common daylight occurrences known to Yakubu Gowon. As for the events in the [N]orth-let us simply sum it up and say that ATROCITIES did take place on a scale so vast and so thorough, and so well-organized that it was variously referred to as the Major Massacres (as distinct from the May rehearsals), genocide, and sometimes only as disturbances..."

~Wole Soyinka, professor, Nobel Laureate

The Man Died, 1972

As a matter of fact, Wole Soyinka was jailed without trial until the end of the civil war for publicly condemning this despicable act of savagery.

Yet this same group of medival savages were further ARMED by the Great Britain, Russia and some other nations in 1967 for the sole purpose of exterminating the Biafrans who had now retreated to their original home land. Listen to their war cry:

“Let us go and crush them. We will pillage their property, rape their womenfolk, kill off their menfolk and leave them uselessly weeping. We will complete the pogrom of 1966"

~The theme song of Radio Kaduna, government-controlled, is the above chant in Hausa.

This is what Julius Nyerere the first true African statesman said about Biafra:

"Surely, when a whole people is rejected by the majority of the state in which they live, they must have the right to live under a different kind of arrangement which does secure their existence. States are made to serve people; governments are established to protect the citizens of a state against external enemies and internal wrong-doers."

~President Julius Nyerere
Biafra, Human Rights and Self-determination in Africa.
April 13, 1968 (Dar es Salam)

But listen to the savages Great Britain would rather do business with:

“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 Ibo having one piece to eat before their capitulation. We shoot at everything that moves.” Asked what his forces would do when they overran the center of Ibo territory, Adekunle replied, “then we shoot at everything. Even things that don’t move.”

~Colonel Adekunle (Commander of the 3rd Marine Commando)
THE BRUTALITY OF NATIONS
DAN JACOBS

And the Washington post confirmed this state of affairs:
“One word now describes the policy of the Nigerian military government towards secessionist Biafra: genocide. It is ugly and extreme but it is the only word which fits Nigeria’s decision to stop the International Committee of the red Cross, and other relief agencies, from flying food to Biafra ...”

Mayer
Washington Post (editorial)
July 2, 1969

Prayer: I wish to therefore pray that Great Britain and her partners in crime be made to pay compensation to the Biafra nation, (as Japan has recently done for maltreating some British POWs) for their complicity in aiding and abetting genocide. However, if compensation is considered inappropriate, then the leadership of these countries at that period should be prosecuted at the Hague war crimes tribunal. I find the words of the British journalist and author, Frederick Forsyth very instructive:

“But even at this stage certain points can be made with absolute certainty. First, whatever has been done, the Nigerian Military Government and its Head, the Supreme Commander, cannot escape responsibility in law.
“Second prima facie cases already exist against individual Nigerian Army commanders for instigation of, or responsibility for, distinct and numerous cases of mass murder over and above the requirements of war.
“Third, the charge of genocide is too big for the world authority vested by the signatories of the Convention in the United Nations to be required to wait for a post factum inquiry, or none at all. If the Convention is to rate as anything other than a useless piece of paper, a reasonable suspicion of genocide must suffice to bring investigation. This reasonable suspicious has been established months ago; and the United Nations is in breach of its own sworn word, embodied in Article One, so long as it continues to refuse to investigate. Lastly, whatever the Nigerians have done, the British Government of Harold Wilson has voluntarily made itself a total accomplice. As of December 1968 there can be no further question of neutrality, or ignorance, or a helping hand to a friendly government. The involvement is absolute.”

The Biafra Story
Frederick Forsyth

PS: Renee, I would've made my posting at the CNN forum, but this message board offers more editing options. Be sure to invite some of the guys at the CNN board who would like to debate any of the issues I've raised in this posting. I hope the final conference deliberations are peaceful and fruitful.

Rgdz,

OU
A Biafran from BiafraNigeria.

I come to you today with new developments. I learned that the Bush Administration has sent United States National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, to Geneva for the 3rd Preparatory Conference (PrepCom). The PrepCom in Geneva is where the final documents for the WCAR are currently being negotiated. I learned that Ms. Rice is there to pressure African countries to remove all language relating to "reparations" or "compensation" from the conference documents. She is also there to ascertain that words such as "transatlantic slave trade" and "slavery is a violation of human rights" are also removed from the documents. Such words lead to an admission by the West, which in turn lead to the issue of reparations.

Her ploy is to use the usual U.S. strong-arm tactics: blackmail and extortion. She is threatening these leaders with reduced aid, and she is attempting to get them to agree that reparations should come in the form of debt relief. If that happens, any talk of reparations will die forever. If they take that deal, then there will be no further accountability by the West for the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. There will be no accountability for colonialism or neo-colonialism. The West gets off Scott free and the victims of slavery will be forgotten.

If Ms. Rice succeeds, Africa can forget about foreign aid. We will have to get ourselves out of the mess THEY got us into. That is unacceptable. The West cannot be permitted to walk away from the devastation it has wrought on an entire continent.

The whole idea behind the WCAR is that countries are supposed to take what is discussed at the conference back home. Then, they are to institute national dialogues and from there, determine how best to tackle the problems we all face. Such problems revolve around racism, gender discrimination, violence against women and children, etc.

For example, if the Bush Administration were to relent and send an official U.S. delegation to the conference in spite of the language in the documents, and if such delegation were headed by Secretary of State Colin Powell, the U.S. would come away from the conference, and perhaps begin to pay serious attention to people like Congressman John Conyers, Jr. However, if Ms. Rice gets her way, and the language is stricken from the documents, then Congressman John Conyers, Jr. will be ignored.

I refer to him because Congressman John Conyers, Jr. is working on a reparations bill, H.R. 40. If Ms. Rice succeeds in Geneva, all talk of reparations will also die in the United States. The Bush Administration will then be free to claim that African Americans have already been compensated for slavery by way of welfare and affirmative action in this country.

I am very much interested in your comments on these very important events. Should there even be reparations for the slave trade, and what form should it take? Obviously, monetary compensation is hard to measure, since no one bothered to keep records and determining how much to pay someone for enslaving them is virtually impossible. Should reparations be in the form of social programs, including debt forgiveness, getting rid of IMF/World Bank structural adjustment programs and the like? Should the West be required to facilitate trade with African countries? After all, if NAFTA and other such trade agreements exist, why can't there be similar agreements involving African countries?

And by the way, Ms. Rice should really be ashamed of herself. I understand that at times, people face great personal conflict in performing their jobs. However, when your job becomes distasteful, people with a conscience are usually able to walk away rather than compromise their principles. Obviously, Ms. Rice takes no pride in herself as a Black woman. Otherwise, she would tell Bush where to go, and she would not be the one to do a racist's dirty work for him.

Thanks for the update. It is good to come in contact with people like you who truly care, and enough at that to want to do something about it.

The problem with BiafraNigeria nay, Africa is that the leadership 99% of the time are foisterd on the populace by the super powers(read US, UK et al). The result is that these so called leaders spend their time without giving a hoot to the plight of their people since they owe their allegiance to the colonial masters who installed them in the first place.

It is interesting you brought up the issue of the US possibly trying to use debt relief et al to bribe these leaders into chamfering their agenda. Well, I personally feel BiafraNigeria may have already towed that path.

The guy who RULES BiafraNigeria, one General Obasanjo is a big puppet if ever there was one. There was a report that America actually bribed the late dictator Sani Abacha who was hell bent in executing Obasanjo for his involvement in a foiled coup in which America was also implicated. Presently, Mr Obasanjo's "elite" guard are American soldiers although they will have the world believe American soldiers are in BiafraNigeria to help the Army.

So there you have it, Africa is RULED mostly by people SELECTED by the US and her friends. When they look at Africa, they only see a comodities market and a place to be exploited. Little wonder then that the extension of the US & UK millitary presence in BiafraNigeria is in the Niger delta region, where their role is to put restive and impoverished land owners in check from causing any disruptions to the activities of the oil companies.

They can continue to arm the opressive regimes against their own people and pay lip service to equity and fairness, but they should know that some of us are are aware of their "double Dutch".

The west especially the "Great" Britain has continued to sqaunder opportunities to right the wrongs of the past in their dealings with Africa. My intelligent prediction is that they will soon be confronted with the ugly consequences of their misdeeds.

The news this morning here in Britain is that a leaked home office report indicates that Britain has effectively LOST the war on immigration control. The cost of dealing with assylum cases and benefits et al is staggering and is becoming a major source of concern for a welfarist nation whose productivity is on the decline. I personally do not believe that such huge numbers of people would have opted for these semi arctic Isles in place of the sun-kissed tropical environment.

The drift is because those nations are NOT working, and those nations and their leadership are the creation of the so called colonial masters.

In the case of BiafraNigeria, Professor Wole Soyinka describes this most ambiguous contraption as "the mistake of 1914", in reference to the year the North and south of BiafraNigeria was amalgamated without the consent of or cosultation with the constituent nations. The more depressing aspect of this simplistic fusion of compound and complex nations was also the foistering of reactionary leaders on the populace who were/are malleable materials for the colonialists.

Listen to professor Stanley Diamond, author of "Nigeria, the model of colonial failure" quote:

".... it is difficult to see the Federation of Nigeria as a great moral force to which one must automatically have a commitment. Rather it seems to be a category of those other British Federal experiments during the process of decolonization, Central Africa and South Arabia. There too, the most reactionary forces were placed in control and they were also failures.” unquote.

And this is what Professor Diamond thinks of Biafra as a nation without the attachment to Nigeria:

"The Ibo speaking peoples have been the national revolutionary population in West Africa. . This goes back for two generations. The fourth factor is that an industrious, self-modernizing independent population, having developed a national conscious" ness, would refuse to become an instrument of neo-colonial control and would therefore help to catalyze, as I have mentioned before, autonomous developments elsewhere in Africa".

That is the crux of the matter, that countries like Biafra would have blazed the trail of true independence for the rest of Africa and we won't be begging for alms today in the name of aids and "debt" reprieve, neither would Africans be drowning in their numbers in futile attempts to swim the Atlantic in a bid to escape the hardship at home. The forced unions has made it impossible for the nigerian half to benefit from the ingenuity and industry of the Biafran half simply because their is no sense of belonging.

Professor Arene agrees with the assessment on the capabilities of the Biafrans:

"I can make the assertion here that if what the 'Biafran' Scientists had achieved in weaponry and general civilian goods manufactures (without any foreign technicians and inputs) and the tempo with which they did those things, had been copied by Nigeria at the end of the Civil War in January 1970, when Gowon made his famous quote 'no victor, no vanquished", Nigeria might not now be where it is scientifically and technologically, still very dependent on foreign inputs (in raw materials and personnel) for virtually all its so-called scientific and technological advances."

~Professor Eugene Arene "The 'Biafran' Scientists (The Development of an African Indigenous Technology)" - January, 1996

And the English man and commentator on BiafraNigerian Affairs K W J Post wrote the following as far back as January 1968 and I quote:

"Given the nature of Nigeria as a colonial creation, the probable impossibility for the present leadership of running a plural society of its size and complexity, the economic and emotional heritage of the civil war, it seems inevitable that the question must be raised whether it might not have been better to allow Biafra to secede." unquote

But Great Britain was far too short sighted for that kind of reasoning at that point in time. Methinks, they found the following by the Nigerian propagandist on a mission to buy arms for use against Biafra more acceptable:

"The British created Nigeria and together we have built it. Britain has substantial commercial and industrial interests in Nigeria; the annual turnover of British trade with Nigeria, for example, is of the order of $510 million a year. Some 20,000 United Kingdom subjects live and work in Nigeria. Nigeria supplies 10% of Britain's oil requirements. For these and other reasons, the Nigerian crisis must be of some concern to people in Britain".
~ Anthony Enahoro, Nigerian war propagandist
London 1967

Let the west consider allowing Africans to quietly unmake the crude and cruel creation. By this I do not mean for the west to have another opportunity for a "demand creation" process for arms and ammunitions. For untill we unmake their mistakes, the monsters they created in the first place will devour them!

“Tom Lantos, a California Democrat and member of the US delegation, said he was unable to recommend to the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, that the US should attend the Durban conference, while Zionism remained on the racism agenda.”

Does this single US cCngressman have that much power? I think the US should stick to its own issues, instead of becoming the puppet for Israel. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1482000/1482217.stm

As Pax Americana reigns, and its Euro-American world-view predominates, there's nothing that the Arab nations can do about America's intentions about the Durban conference. If the agenda is not modified, America and Isreal will not attend.

Mr. Udumeze I understand the desires of Igbos and other Biafrans for freedom, and I understand how Biafra can help you to reach your goals. However, when I started this discussion, I was concerned about ALL of Africa, ALL people of African descent, and OTHER GROUPS OF PEOPLE who are routinely subjected to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance.

Mr. Udumeze, my reasons for responding to you in particular are because you have provided the most detailed responses, and because I want you to understand that I believe there is more at stake here than just Biafra. The issues are truly global, and are not confined to the internal politics of Biafra-Nigeria. What I would like to see is for you to put your positions in the context of the WCAR.

I would like for you to go one step further and answer questions such as what impact the WCAR could have on Igbos and other Biafrans, if any. I want you to discuss how Igbos can benefit from the WCAR. I want you to consider how Igbos can use this type of conference to their advantage. If the West decides to provide reparations to Nigeria under its current leadership, how will that affect Igbos and other Biafrans? How would Igbos and other Biafrans use the guidelines from the WCAR once Nigeria decides to institute a national discourse on inter-ethnic relations? Perhaps Biafra-Nigeria is far away from such discourse, but the issue should be considered in light of the WCAR.

Mr. Adamu, there was a hearing on Capitol Hill during which Cong. Lantos stated his position on U.S. participation in the WCAR. At that time, he did not address reparations or slavery. He merely stated that if the zionism language remained in the documents, he would encourage the Bush Administration to refrain from participating in the WCAR. He further stated if for any reason the U.S. did participate, he would hope that it only did so at a very low level, and certainly under those circumstances Colin Powell should not head the U.S. delegation.

I would not say that Cong. Lantos has that much power, since the U.S. had taken this position from the very beginning. Cong. Lantos only articulated a position that was consistent with the Bush Administration position as it became increasingly apparent that the zionism language would remain in the documents. Mr. Lantos went to Geneva to make certain that such language was removed. Keep in mind that the U.S. has always had a �gsoft spot�h for Isreal. Again, the issues here are truly global, and are not confined to the internal politics of Biafra-Nigeria. I hope that your position is not being informed exclusively by Hausa/Fulani and their associated Arab interests.

Go ahead and have your conference. But, by all means, do not assume that any head of state of Nigeria (BiafraNigeria) speaks for Bifrans. The current Head of State of Nigeria is Olisiego Obusonjo. His name literally means that he is a fraudulent embezzler of public funds and he is ugly. He only speaks for his Yoruba ethnic group. He does not speak for Biafrans or Igbos. Under no circumstances should that retarded Nigerian head of state be handed any reparations accruing to non-Yorubas from the infamous trans-Atlantic slave trade. The Yorubas seem to have accepted him as their leader, even though Yorubas voted against him in the election that made him president. If all this seems confusing to you, that means that you may have some homework to do about BiafraNigeria.

But, I am sure that our eloquent Ohafia will have a more comprehensive response for you.

Ohafia has said all he needs say. Articulating a globally encompassing African viewpoint at the scope that you justifiably want may just be way beyond his scope and indeed that of this forum. He and indeed anyone who embarks on that course would need months of research, travels, interviews and review of archival reports, as must be obvious to you.

Indeed, in not so many words, he has told you that the Nigerian government, arguably the most corrupt in the world and unfortunately the supposedly de facto leader of the black race may already have recapitulated. Nigeria cannot have a position that is not authored by the US and the UK. Every atrocity in Nigeria has had the signature of these 2 evil nations. What strange fellows, US that continues to have racial profiling as a legitimate exercise of government! Ohafia has mentioned a litany of evil deeds in Nigeria with the seal of authority of the US and UK but failed to mention the most recent ones. I will try to raise some of them, just so that you cease expecting anything from Abuja. All that matters there is who opens the largest offshore account.

Most recently, the UN and US at the highest levels of representation, in the persons of Kofi Anan and Asst. Secretary of State Pickering, respectively, colluded with the military dictatorship of General Abubakar, in the murder of the winner of the freest and fairest presidential election ever in Nigeria. He was named Moshhood Abiola and his crime was advocating for reparation.

The UK through its surrogate Shell Petroleum ordered the extra judicial slaying of Nigeria's foremost environmentalist. He was named Ken Saro-Wiwa. Even as 10 Downing Street was going through the motions of outrage at this macabre and senseless slaughter, the then Nigerian Attorney General, Mr. Agbamuche was on a state visit to Britain. Even as I write, Shell and the Nigerian puppets continue to flare natural gas, an ironically scarce and unaffordable fuel for most Nigerians. I need not tell you that in flaring this fuel, the environment is devastated yet it requires only the vary basic of technologies to have it bottled for domestic use. I am yet to see a succession of regimes that hate its citizenry as the Nigerian kitchens of power in Washington and London have churned out.

The current Nigerian helmsman, General Obasanjo, within one year in office razed an entire town Odi. Umuechie before Odi faced the same scorched earth policy of shoot everything that moves and leave nothing standing under another vermin, the self acclaimed evil genius, General Babangida. All these were at Shell’s bidding and with Britain’s acquiescence. These indigenous peoples had no right to ask for a say in how their farm lands and fish ponds, fresh water and forests, flora and fauna in general were being irreplaceably degraded by an all conquering occupation force. The Ogoni indigenous people are scattered all over the world running away from hounding state armies and from an environment that has in spite of the unbridled irresponsible oil prospecting cannot feed them.

There are lots and lots of these instances. My point is that Nigeria is dysfunctional and it suits the whims and caprices of the West to have it so, indeed encourage it. The west wants no credible leadership or enterprising country out of Africa. As presently constituted, Nigeria is a sham and blacks in Africa and elsewhere in Diaspora should look elsewhere for guidance. It may interest you to know that Nigeria is yet to lay claims to an executive head of state that could boast a decent secondary education. How can such a caliber of nitwits hobnob with the best brains on the world stage?

Unfortunately, this conference is for nations. Biafra is yet to reclaim its nationhood so we shall not be participating. In order to have our views presented at Durban, we’d have to go through General Obasanjo. Himself, a genocidal war criminal that may never be brought to account for his atrocities between 1967 and 1970 in the attempted extermination of a race, has neither the intellect nor the will to see the broader picture of striving for the general good of his people. This is of course because he recognizes no one that doesn’t aid the fattening of his foreign accounts as his people.