Even the British who created nigeria knew that it could only function as a true federation of 3 autonomous republics. Today, an illegal unitary structure has been superimposed on the disputed 1914 structure. At least, those Igbo who chose to append academic titles to their names in this forum should dignify those titles by bringing out the issues at the heart of the nigerian contest, not muddle the issues withsome azu mangala analysis ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Determination versus Territorial Integrity (extract)
A dynamic conflict exists between a people's right to self-determination and a nation's territorial integrity; a conflict between freedom and unity. A. The Right of Self-Determination
Articles 1(2) and 55 of the U.N. Charter refer to the right of self-determination. n48 Part of the problem in implementing this right is that it lacks a commonly accepted definition. n49 Many definitions of self-determination include the following characteristics: (1) a government based on the will of the people; (2) freedom from internal and external dominance; (3) freedom to pursue economic, cultural, and social development; (4) the right to enjoy fundamental human rights; and (5) the absence of discrimination based on ethnicity or political beliefs. n50 The International Court of Justice (I.C.J.) defines the right of self-determination as an erga omnes right, meaning it applies to all people. n51 Self-determination has also been called an inalienable right. n52 In extreme circumstances, the right of self-determination includes a right to secede. n53 [*707]
B. Right of Territorial Integrity
Inherent in the organization of a country is the right to keep that country together. This right is also included in the Charter of the United Nations. n54 Particularly in the infant nations of post-colonial Africa, countries have a keen interest in preserving their right of territorial integrity. n55 There must be a balance, therefore, between the inalienable right of self-determination and the right to maintain a nation's territorial integrity, because territorial integrity was not intended to preclude the right to self-determination. n56 On one hand, too strict a reading of territorial integrity creates an internationally sanctioned form of fascism, a nation where the people have no freedom to disagree. On the other hand, too broad a definition of self-determination makes it impossible to keep countries together. Therefore, the threshold for secession based on self-determination should be very high to avoid fractionalization based on minor divergences of interest. In U.N. General Assembly Resolutions 1514 n57 and 1541, n58 the right to self-determination was held to apply only in colonial situations. n59 Later court decisions expanded this to apply to people who are oppressed by foreign occupying powers or otherwise denied the free exercise of self-determination. n60 Secession is only allowed in cases of gross human rights violations. n61 [*708]
III. Case Studies
Several nations have seceded or attempted to secede from oppressive powers based on the doctrine of self-determination. East Timor, also a Portuguese colony, did so successfully as a non-self-governing territory in 1960. n62 Quebec attempted to secede from Canada several times, but in 1998 the Canadian Supreme Court ruled against such secession. n63 Biafra attempted and failed to secede from Nigeria during a bloody three-year civil war. n64 The facts surrounding Cabinda's claim to independence closely resemble some of the events in Biafra. While Biafra's right to self-determination was superseded by the old maxim of "might makes right," Cabinda provides an opportunity to see how far diplomacy has progressed over four decades.
A. East Timor
The tiny island of Timor, situated to the southwest of Indonesia, has long been controlled by large colonial powers. n65 Divided between the Dutch and the Portuguese during the colonial era, the western portion became part of Indonesia in 1946, while the eastern half remained under Portuguese control until 1975. n66 Soon after East Timor's first elections in 1975, neighboring Indonesia orchestrated a coup d'etat, resulting in a bloody civil war. n67 Indonesia sent in military forces in December of the same year to occupy the region, proclaiming the area as Indonesia's twenty-seventh province. n68 The United Nations condemned the Indonesian invasion, n69 but its pronouncements had little effect. n70 By May 1976, [*709] Indonesia had installed a puppet "Regional Popular Assembly" that passed a resolution in favor of East Timor's incorporation into Indonesia. n71
Indonesia maintained that the people of East Timor had exercised their right to self-determination through the Regional Popular Assembly. n72 On the other hand, Portugal, recognized by the United Nations as the administering power in the region, maintained that the approval of East Timor's integration with Indonesia had not been an accurate representation of the "free and genuine will" of the people. n73 The conflict between Portugal's claim to administrative control in East Timor and Indonesia's de facto control of the region came to a head in 1989 with a natural resource contract disagreement, referred to as the Timor Gap Dispute. n74 The International Court of Justice ruled in 1995 that the Court could not determine Indonesia's treaty-making power over East Timor or the lawfulness of Indonesia's occupation of East Timor because it lacked jurisdiction over Indonesia. n75 In 1999, the U.N. Security Council brokered a deal with Portugal and Indonesia to allow the people of East Timor to vote on a special autonomy [*710] within the Republic of Indonesia. n76 If the people of East Timor rejected this special autonomy, the alternative was total independence. n77 Registered voters voted overwhelmingly to transition toward independence. n78 Under the watchful eye of the U.N., East Timor is now tottering toward independence. n79 East Timor is an excellent example of a U.N.-led referendum leading to an _expression of the self-determination of the people.
B. Quebec
One of Canada's ten provinces, Quebec has a population of about six and a half million people, eighty percent of whom are French speakers. n80 In the 1960s, Quebec began to assert itself as an industrial power and consequently demanded greater influence in the economic and commercial decisions of the province. n81 They also attempted to gain a more widespread use of the French language. n82 In 1980, the majority of Quebec's citizens voted, against secession from Canada. n83 Despite this setback, Quebec continued to push for independence. In 1988, the Canadian House of Commons ratified the [*711] Meech Lake Accord, which granted several key powers to Quebec. n84 However, the Accord failed to obtain ratification by all ten provinces and eventually broke down. n85 Quebec continued to push for secession, pushing through nationwide referenda in 1992 and 1995, but both times the vote was against sovereignty. Indeed, even the citizens of Quebec voted in the negative. n86
In 1998, the Quebec government asked the Supreme Court of Canada whether Quebec could secede under Canada's Constitution or under international law principles of self-determination. n87 The court ruled against Quebec's constitutional argument because its own citizens had voted against secession several times. n88 In reply to Quebec's second contention, [*712] secession on the basis of international law, the court enumerated three situations in which international law would uphold a nation's right to "external self-determination" or secession: former colonies; situations of oppression, for example a people suffering foreign military occupation; or where a definable group is denied meaningful government access to pursue political, economic, social and cultural development. n89 The court then determined that according to this understanding of international law, "Quebec does not meet the threshold of a colonial people or oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development." n90 Although frequently defeated, Quebec continues to fight for secession. The vocal secessionist minority still exercises significant influence over the Premier of Quebec and still holds considerable sway over the population as a whole, though not enough to pass a referendum. n91 There is a distinct possibility that this cycle will repeat several more times. As such, Quebec is a good illustration of the limits of the right of self-determination. Additional lessons may be learned from the Canadian Supreme Court's opinion, which clearly outlines the elements required for secession.
C. Biafra
In 1914, when British colonial administrators introduced a plan to amalgamate the Northern and Southern protectorates of the Niger region, the plan was decidedly unpopular. n92 The Northern protectorate, though still a colony, gave serious consideration to the idea of secession. n93 Britain, [*713] however, continued with the plan, joining the North and South to form a nation that the Prime Minister of Nigeria, Abubakar Tatawa Balewa, described as "existing as one country only on paper." n94 Within these new borders were three distinct and often hostile ethnic groups: the Hausa-Fulani in the Northern region of the country, the Yoruba in the Western region, and the Ibo in the Eastern region. n95 The regions were separated by differences in language, culture, religion, and economic development, which only amplified the animosity between them. n96 By the time Nigeria gained its independence from Britain in 1960, the three main tribes were threatening secession as the "trump card" in a jealous, irrational, and often bloody battle for control. n97 Even before Nigeria became independent, the tentative stalemate was often inflamed by the perceived advancement of any side. n98 Unfortunately, independence did not quell the rising tide of animosity and suspicion. Instead, with no controlling outside power, the neighboring regions grew more jealous of one another. n99 Tensions also increased due to difficulties suffered by the newly-liberated federation in agreeing on representation. n100
On January 16, 1966, several young Ibo military officers staged a coup and installed Major General Aguiyi Ironsi as head of state. n101 Of course, [*714] this triggered jealousy and paranoia in the North and the West, leading to a second coup on July 29, the assassination of Major General Ironsi, and the installation of Lieutenant-Colonel Yakubu Gowon, a Northerner. n102
This Northern paranoia finally boiled over in September and October of 1966, leading to the murder of at least 10,000 Ibos and the expulsion of many more. n103 As violence in the North escalated, Lieutenant-Colonel Gowon feebly attempted to pacify the aggrieved East and to reconstruct the tattered nation. n104
The United Nations refused to intervene, claiming the incident was under the jurisdiction of the Organization for African Unity - who also refused responsibility - arguing it was an ""internal affair,' the solution of which was primarily the responsibility of the Nigerians themselves." n105 Because the international community refused to become involved, several nations took advantage through arms profiteering by offering weapons and allegiances to the highest bidder. n106
The Eastern region's declaration of secession from Nigeria in 1967, creating the independent nation of Biafra, hardly came as a surprise. n107 Lieutenant-Colonel Gowon's government responded by declaring war on Biafra, resulting in a bloody civil war. n108 Despite defeat to Nigeria, Biafra's claim to self-determination and secession seems valid. The Ibo people attempted to exercise their right to self-determination by seceding from Nigeria, which decision was authorized by the only two functioning political bodies in the Eastern region, the Consultative Assembly and the Advisory Committee of Chiefs and Elders. n109
The Biafrans were justified in their belief that secession was a valid method of self-determination because all the regions, the North in particular, had frequently used such threats to alter their relationships with [*715] others and influence important decisions. n110 In addition, the Biafrans had a legitimate claim to oppression after the Northerners killed fifty thousand of their citizens and drove two million from their homes. n111 Biafra also had historical distinction, as its members had a different culture, language, and religion from the rest of the nation, and historically had been separate before colonization. n112
Unfortunately, Biafra illustrates what happens when law fails: societies revert to trial by combat. n113 In a world where authority is derived from physical power rather than democratic processes, Biafra deserves to be free, but does not have the military strength to secede. Biafra exemplifies the ugly alternative to referenda and diplomacy - where justice falls victim to power...
___________________ achieve Biafra and show the difference Posts: 642 | From: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
The coming of the micro-states By Fred Weir, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor Mon Jun 5, 4:00 AM ET
MOSCOW - As goes Montenegro, so goes Kosovo, Transdniestria, and South Ossetia?
As Montenegro officially declared independence this weekend, accepting the world's welcome into the community of nations, a handful of obscure "statelets" are demanding the same opportunity to choose their own destinies. In the latest example, Transdniestria, a Russian-speaking enclave that won de facto independence in the early 1990s, declared last week that it will hold a Montenegro-style referendum in September as part of its campaign for statehood. Experts fear that many "frozen conflicts" around the world - in which a territory has gained de facto independence through war but failed to win international recognition - could reignite as ethnic minorities demand the same right to self-determination that many former Yugoslav territories have been offered by the international community. Even more significant than Montenegro's rise to statehood would be the international community's acceptance of Kosovo's bid for independence. The province of Serbia was seized by NATO in 1999. Ongoing talks discussing that possibility are being watched with intense interest by rebel statelets. But as tiny, newly independent states such as East Timor find themselves mired in ethnic violence, international observers are wary of the implications of such a move."If Kosovo becomes independent, this precedent will cause further fragmentation of the global order and lead to the creation of more unviable little states," predicts Dmitri Suslov, an analyst with the independent Council on Foreign and Defense Policy in Moscow. Russia has backed the emergence of several pro-Moscow separatist enclaves in the post-Soviet region, as a means of keeping pressure on defiant neighbors, but has so far been deterred from granting them official recognition by international strictures against changing the borders of existing states. Montenegro's successful May 21 vote of independence from Yugoslavia - recognized by the world community - has encouraged others' thoughts of following the same path.
The United Nations Charter mentions both the right of "self-determination" of peoples and the "territorial integrity" of states as bedrock principles of the world order. But these principles come into conflict when a separatist minority (Like our in-house biafran wannabees) threatens to rupture an existing country. Russia, which has a score of ethnic "republics," including an active rebellion in
Chechnya, has long championed the "territorial integrity" side of the equation. But the Kremlin's emphasis, at least regarding some of its neighbors, appears to be shifting. "If such precedents are possible [in the former Yugoslavia], they will also be precedents in the post-Soviet space," President
Vladimir Putin told journalists Friday. "Why can Albanians in Kosovo have independence, but [Georgian breakaway republics] South Ossetia and Abkhazia can't? What's the difference?" When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, all of its 15 major republics gained their freedom and basked in the glow of global acceptance. But within some of those new states, smaller ethnic groups raised their own banners of rebellion. In the early 1990s, two "autonomous republics" in Georgia - Abkhazia and South Ossetia - defeated government forces with Russian assistance and established regimes that are effectively independent but stuck in legal limbo because they remain officially unrecognized, even by Moscow. The Russian-speaking province of Transdniestria, aided by the Russian 14th army, similarly broke away from the ethnically Romanian republic of Moldova. The Armenian-populated enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan fell under Armenian control after a savage war; and rebels in Russia's southern republic of Chechnya briefly won de facto independence in the late '90s after crushing Russian forces on the battlefield. In all of these cases, the international principle respecting the "territorial integrity" of existing states has so far trumped the yearning of small nationalities for their own statehood. Citing that rule, Moscow launched a brutal military campaign in 1999 that has since largely succeeded in reintegrating Chechnya as a province of Russia. But Russia's relations with Georgia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan have soured in recent years, as those countries have broken from Moscow's orbit and charted a more pro-West course. That, plus the precedents being set in the former Yugoslavia, has led some nationalist politicians in Moscow to demand the Kremlin salvage what influence it can in the region by granting recognition - or even membership in the Russian Federation - to some of those breakaway entities. Transdniestria has already signed an economic pact with Moscow that will allow the tiny but heavily-industrialized territory to sell its goods in Russia and eventually join the Russian ruble's currency zone. Also in the focus of Russia's changing policies are the breakaway Georgian republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. "Russia needs to be more active in solving the problems of Abkhazia and South Ossetia," says Igor Panarin, a professor at the official Diplomatic Academy in Moscow, which trains Russian diplomats. "Both the people and governments of [these statelets] want to join Russia, and there's every legal reason for them to do so. Polls show the majority of Russians support this, too." Eduard Kokoity, president of the Georgian breakaway republic of South Ossetia, said last week he will ask Russia to annex his statelet, which has existed in legal limbo since driving out Georgian forces in a bitter civil war in the early '90s. "In the nearest future, we will submit documents to the Russian Constitutional Court proving the fact that South Ossetia joined the Russian Empire together with North Ossetia as an indivisible entity and never left Russia," Mr. Kokoity said. South Ossetia, with a population of about 70,000, is ethnically and geographically linked with the Russian Caucasus republic of North Ossetia. Experts say there is a local campaign, supported by Russian nationalists, to join the two territories into a new Moscow-ruled republic that would be named "Alania" - the ancient name of the Ossetian nation. "South Ossetia really wants to join Russia, and I wouldn't rule this out as a long-term prospect," says Suslov. Abkhazia, a sub-tropical Black Sea enclave, expelled its Georgian residents during the 1992-93 civil war, and now is home to about 200,000 ethnic Abkhaz who eke out a living exporting fruit to Russia and welcoming the few Russian tourists that visit each year. Georgians cry foul, and complain the entire issue is a made-in-Moscow land grab. "South Ossetia and Abkhazia were created as a Bolshevik divide-and-rule device to control Georgia, and they are still being used that way," says Alexander Rondeli, president of the Strategic and International Studies Foundation, an independent think tank based in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. "What is actually going on is the de facto annexation of these territories by Russia. Since Russia is strong, the Western powers let it do whatever it wants." Many Western experts argue that the process of dismantling the former Yugoslavia is a unique event, directly supervised by the UN and carried out with a maximum of democratic safeguards. If Russia acts alone in its region, it risks alienating the world and multiplying regional conflicts. "This is a double-edged sword," says Ariel Cohen, a senior researcher at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. "By recognizing Moscow-supported statelets, Russia would perpetuate frictions for decades to come. Post-Soviet borders should remain inviolate. This would save a lot of headaches, first of all for Russia itself." But for now, the mood in Moscow appears to be hardening. "We disagree with the concept that Kosovo is a unique case, because that runs counter to the norms of international law," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov warned in an interview with Vremya Novostei, a Russian newspaper, last week. "The resolution on Kosovo will create a precedent in international law that will later be applied to other frozen conflicts."
It is a shame that you chose to splash your “Christian Science Monitor” graffiti on a thread that demands a rather higher level of intellectual input. The Christian Science monitor is the only group of scientists in the world that deal in fantastic presuppositions.
There is nothing scientific in jumping to infantile inferences without the benefit of a rigorous systematic, universal and logical process premised on bare and unembellished truth.
In the highly celebrated Christian Science monitor nsogbu with George Galloway the CSM editor Paul Van Slambrouck without an iota of shame, had this to say:
quote: “At the time we published these documents, we felt they were newsworthy and appeared credible…It is important to set the record straight: We are convinced the documents are bogus. We apologize to Mr. Galloway and to our readers.”
The new conclusion and volte-face was after George Galloway and most importantly Iraqi officials slammed the forged documents which then led the CSM in June 20 to publish a truly scientific conclusion:
quote: “An extensive Monitor investigation has subsequently determined that the six papers detailed in the April 25 piece are, in fact, almost certainly forgeries. The Arabic text of the papers is inconsistent with known examples of Baghdad bureaucratic writing, and is replete with problematic language, says a leading US-based expert on Iraqi government documents. Signature lines and other format elements differ from genuine procedure. Two of the documents dated 1992 and 1993 were written within the past few months, according to a chemical analysis of their ink. The newest document—dated 2003—appears to have been written at approximately the same time.”
I guess it is less taxing for CSM to inject into the public domain what they feel “is newsworthy and appears credible” than to take pains and actually verify the credibility. There is no surprise such antics will enjoy followership among the Yorobas of BiafraNigeria who celebrate blatantly dishonest writers like Reuben Abati. The graffiti article by Fred Weir fails woefully both as an informed commentary on the flux of nations (and the Baltic region) and also an educated exposition on the UN article on self-determination and territorial integrity. The only ground on which Mr Weir could be excused is if he repackages his graffiti as a subtle attack on the USSR, “the auld enemy and evil empire”. Lets try and make some sense of Weir’s graffiti as he writes:
quote: Even more significant than Montenegro's rise to statehood would be the international community's acceptance of Kosovo's bid for independence. The province of Serbia was seized by NATO in 1999. Ongoing talks discussing that possibility are being watched with intense interest by rebel statelets. But as tiny, newly independent states such as East Timor find themselves mired in ethnic violence, international observers are wary of the implications of such a move."If Kosovo becomes independent, this precedent will cause further fragmentation of the global order and lead to the creation of more unviable little states," predicts Dmitri Suslov, an analyst with the independent Council on Foreign and Defense Policy in Moscow.
Mr Weir’s “international observers” in this instance turned out to be one Dmitri Suslov and his caution nothing more than a baseless private gloomy prediction. It is interesting to note that notable figures who have first hand interaction with the Kosovoans like Wesley Clark the former US general who commanded the NATO forces in 1999 see a different future for Kosovo:
quote: "I am confident that this issue will be solved very soon, and probably in few months, Kosovo will become independent and will respect the rights of all citizens. I believe that Kosovo will be welcomed into the family of the nations and that there will be many opportunities for the citizens of this country to prosper, raise big families and make their dreams come true” AFP May 25 2006.
Mr Weir is also at his “objective best” when he describes East Timor as a tiny newly independent state mired in ethnic violence. It should be well and truly obvious that Weir is living up to the CSM standard of presupposition. The fact is that East Timor just like even the most “established nations” will always be seeking to evolve creative solutions in managing her multi ethnic and cosmopolitan challenges. It is unfortunate that while the teething problems of the young nation is amplified as ethnic violence with Armageddonic connotations it is referred to as “rioting” in France and the United Kingdom. Mr Weir has failed to inform his readers that in June 2005 the East Timor parliament unanimously approved the establishment of a Petroleum Fund to serve as a repository for all petroleum revenues and preserve the value of East Timor's petroleum wealth for future generations. It will appear that the people of East Timor see themselves as viable and having a future. Their revenue and economic projections is currently ahead of schedule and exceeds the forecast by informed experts. The life expectancy as of 2006 is 66.26 years as against 47.08 for a BiafraNigerian!
Mr Weir’s poor choice of words exemplified in his description of emerging nations with words such as tiny, statelet, micro must be a huge insult on intelligent people all over the world. If size is the critical prerequisite to the viability of a state as Mr Weir will have us believe then countries like Liechtenstein about 0.9 times the size of Washington DC would have ceased to exist. But it is common knowledge that small countries like Liechtenstein are actually fairing better than some old so called large viable states. Of this “tiny” land-locked entity the CIA fact book observes 2006:
quote:“Despite its small size and limited natural resources, Liechtenstein has developed into a prosperous, highly industrialized, free-enterprise economy with a vital financial service sector and living standards on a par with its large European neighbours. The Liechtenstein economy is widely diversified with a large number of small businesses.”
One can safely conclude that Montenegro and eventually Kosovo can be as prosperous and viable as their people and the leadership want. Fortunately, they do not have to travel very far to see working models like the Czech and the aforementioned Liechtenstein. All it takes as Ojukwu advised the Nigerians during the Biafra-Nigeria war is for the leadership to show some imagination. It is essentially idiotic and racist to think that the inhabitants of a certain clime are incapable of such imagination and creativity.
Messrs Weir and Bababyoz’s understanding of the UN charter on human rights is at best laughable and at worst the stuff of simpletons. Hear them:
quote: “The United Nations Charter mentions both the right of "self-determination" of peoples and the "territorial integrity" of states as bedrock principles of the world order. But these principles come into conflict when a separatist minority (Like our in-house Biafran wannabees) threatens to rupture an existing country.”
For want of time I’ll leave you with a quote from a scholarly treatise on the subject of secession and international law perspectives by M G Kohen:
quote: “no reference to the respect of the territorial integrity of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) was mentioned in the numerous resolutions and declarations adopted at the moment of Slovenia and Croatia’s unilateral proclamations of independence, followed by other components of that federal State. In the case of Eritrea, not only did the UN not evoke Ethiopia’s territorial integrity, but it actively participated in the organisation of the referendum.”
Next lousy graffiti please!
Ohafia Udumeze Supreme Advocate of Biafra
___________________ Awo's political idea was based on the assumption that any town beyond Owo was Igbo or Hausa. Awo was not socialised; he was not a good mixer because he did not have the opportunity, which the secondary school offered. ~TOS Benson, Baba Oba of Lagos Posts: 2644 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
I am sure your selective quoted rebuttal is a figment of your imagination because I know our in-house tabloid reporter would have posted a URL of the rebuttal instead of selected quotes that suit his fantasy.
posted
Mazi OU, please say no more while I ask to add to your valuable lectures to some of our neighbors who, while acknowledging the dept to which the banana republic sank, refuse to reasonably engage in alternative cause that would aid their rescue from their present state of shock. Reproduced here are articles/mails from other sites that dealt with the double standards always in style by a discredited charter, the U.N. to come up with definitions that fit their ulterior motives. If it is ok for one goose, why should it become dirt for the other goose?
quote:Your Excellencies, Holiness, Lords and Respected Members of Society, good afternoon:
I will be living a utopian lie if I fail to follow my sense of civic to share this great analysis by a brother who has remained steadfast with his outlook on the Nigerian cruelty towards the Igbo/Biafran people. A people whose resources are being stolen to feed the rapacious appetite of feudal invaders are being ignored while European groups with much less human count wishes are given attention on a whim.
This review is all about the double standards that are constantly at play when the right of African groups for self determination is the focus. The plight of the Igbos of eastern Nigeria to have a distinct and separate nation away from the corrupt infested Nigeria is no longer news such that what has been done and still being done for others like the Montenegros of Yugoslavia should also be extended to the Biafrans who are presently lumped together with violent strangers in Nigeria.
What you are about to read is a forwarded argument in behalf of the Igbo people of eastern Nigeria by a very brilliant and objective analyst, Honorable Mazi K. Ani who is a highly respected member of my community in diaspora. So, please take some time to go over this and ask yourselves if you can continue to claim fairness to the democratic wishes of Igbo that are fifty plus million people strong. Nigeria is a contrite country that is the British error.
To have crammed people who do not look, act, speak, dress or worship alike together was to say the least very mischievous. Part of the Nigerian anger towards us is our refusal to participate in the Islamic doctrine of Sharia etc. Everyone receiving this mail is no stranger to what goes on in that country since all has embassies and/ or missions there yet no one is speaking out strongly against the wicked injustices that abound in Nigeria and in support of the Igbo rights to secede from the contamination.
Hopefully, the right thing will be done with enough to the Nigerian mess said. I thank you for taking a little time to read this. Also, please excuse my informality; I’m too upset over the continued INJUSTICE towards my people to concentrate or present a more formal piece.
MONTENEGRO VOTE TO SECEDE
The decision by Montenegro to secede has driven the final nail into the coffin of Yugoslavia, the once invincible South Slav state. The World Cup in Germany this June will be the last act of the dead state. After that, Serbia and Montenegro will go their separate ways. Now instead of one Yugoslavia, we have six sovereign states, some less than 1 million in population complete with UN seats. And the high heavens have not fallen.
Yugoslavia as a state has died a long slow death. With that, a new small state is about to be born in Europe, less than 1 million inhabitants complete with a UN seat. With the discussions now holding in Vienna, Kosovo province will soon be independent as well, leaving Serbia alone as the big and sore loser. Serbia fought four wars to prevent disintegration and lost. How are the mighty fallen!
What are the lessons for Nigeria?
1. The historical inevitability of Biafra.
The state of Montenegro was abolished by the "great powers" after World War 1 just as Biafran statehood was truncated in 1970 by the armed conspiracy of the great powers of Great Britain and the now defunct Soviet Union. Just like Nigeria was forcibly amalgamated, Yugoslavia too was formed from the ruins of the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires bringing together Slovenia, Serbs, Croatia, Bosnia etc. into an unworkable union of opposites. Like Nigeria, the collapse of Yugoslavia was only a matter of time. The notion of one Nigeria is a farce.
2. Like Serbia Hausa-Fulani hegemonists will lose everything.
Serbia fought four wars in order to maintain their domination of Yugoslavia. In the end, Serbia lost everything including the Serbian spiritual home of Kosovo Metohia. Given that a state cannot be maintained by force in the long run, it is clear that in Nigeria the same forces that led to the fall of Nigeria and the Hausa-Fulani will be the grand losers. In Yugoslavia, the slide started with Slovenia in 1991 and today, Serbia is alone.
3. Those who make peaceful change impossible...
So far every call for the restructuring of the Nigerian state has been resisted. The concerns of 50 million Igbo are swept under the carpet and trampled on. After imposing Yoruba rule on Nigeria for 8 years, the Hausa-Fulani are now plotting to re-impose a degenerative Islamist hegemony on Nigeria against Igbo wishes. They have created Igbo Bantustans with “governors” who depend on patronage from the Abuja to maintain the status quo. Deeply corrupt and semi-literate thugs such as Atiku Abubakar and Ibrahim Babangida are touted as the new rulers. Without doubt, this insult will provide the catalyst for the 50 million Igbo to finally rise up and secede from the Nigerian Yoke, Slovenian style.
Interestingly, the European Union (EU) is overseeing this peaceful dismantling of the failed state of Yugoslavia. The UN is watching. A precedent is set. Biafrans must demand a referendum and like in Montenegro, if 55% say yes, then Biafra is a foregone conclusion. Neither the UN nor the EU will have the moral authority to resist or even question the disintegration of the Nigerian state where Islamist Shariarists are currently yoked together with Christian Biafrans in an unworkable union that has claimed more than 3 million lives since 1966. To have any credibility at all, the EU must concede that if the 1 million people of Montenegro can vote on a referendum about their independence, so can the 50 million Biafrans. With the lessons of Montenegro, to reject Biafran independence now is to deny the common humanity of black people. What is good for the European goose is good for the African gander. NC
“On the issue at hand, isn't it amazing that the European Union (EU) are facilitating the peaceful separation of Montenegro and Serbia? At the same time, the EU is insisting on the unity of the unworkable state called Nigeria, providing money for sham census etc. If an independence referendum is good for Montenegro (pop. less than 1 000 000) what about Biafra (pop. 50 000 000)? The EU has no moral authority to oppose Biafran sovereignty after Montenegro. Na waa! – Unbelievable!” - KA
To others, remember when in doubt to answer this simple yet serious question: If it is ok for one goose, why should it become dirt for the other goose?
___________________ BIAFRA: The land of my ancestors now, yesterday and always. So it will be! Posts: 2482 | From: Ala Igbo | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:Jabotinsky, Zionism & the Biafran imperative
RUDOLF OKONKWO New York, USA
Monday, October 2, 2006
“The Federation of Nigeria is today as corrupt, as unprogressive and as oppressive and irreformable as the Ottoman Empire was in Eastern Europe over a century ago. And in contrast, the Nigerian Federation in the form it was constituted by the British cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered an African necessity. Yet we are being forced to sacrifice our very existence as a people to the integrity of that ramshackle creation that has no justification either in history or in the freely expressed wishes of the people.” - Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, Ahiara Declaration, June 1, 1969
In 1915, Hermann Cohen, a German-Jewish philosopher declared, “The Jewish people do not need a state of their own. Nor may they have one, for a state is particularistic, and in conflicts with the Jewish messianic mission, which is universal.” Twenty-five years after that statement, synagogues all over Germany and Austria were being set ablaze, Jewish stores were being vandalized and hundreds of Jews were taken off in truckloads to concentration camps.
During that era, a boat named St Louis was on the Atlantic carrying German and Austrian Jews fleeing Europe. The Jewish refugees had Cuban visas but upon arriving in Cuba, many of the visas were found to be phony. Over 900 men, women and children were turned back by Cuba. All efforts to secure a safe haven for them in the continent of America failed. No country would take them. The American secretary of state would not take them neither would the Canadians. A Canadian immigration officer told leading Jews who came to plead on behalf of the 900 “to gather in the synagogue and meditate on the question of why Jews were so universally disliked.” The boat returned to Europe and some of the Jews who were not lucky to be taken by the British ended up in other European countries where the German invaders caught up with them and murdered them.
These Jews would have had a place to go if there was a Jewish state.
On September 29, 1966, Mr. T. George, a native of Idoma, a senior train officer in Kano and a member of Nasara Club, requested that an announcement be made over Kano Rediffusion Network to the effect that a passenger train would be leaving Kano for Eastern Region on October 2nd. The announcement called on all those wishing to travel to report at the railway station on October 1st. Over 700 Igbo packed all the essentials they owned and gathered at the train station. At 7:00 a.m. on Sunday, the 2nd of October 1969, a group of soldiers took Mr. Lekettey, a Ghanaian and Mr. Paul I. Okwawa (an Igbo who was pretending to be a Ghanaian just to stay alive) to the train station to show the two ‘how they have dealt with Okpara’s brothers and sisters.’
In his testimony to the Atrocities Tribunal set up by the Eastern Nigerian Government to look into the pogrom of 1966, Paul I. Okwawa narrated what he saw thus:
“They took us to the Railway Station in an army Landrover. And there, we saw a sight, which I would never like to see again until I am dead. Over 700 men, women, and children had been mowed down - they had been killed while they were waiting for a train to take them to our region. A few of the children were still creeping over their dead mothers, shouting, ‘Mama, I am hungry; I want to drink.’ Some were trying to suck their dead mothers’ breasts! I left them to suck on!”
If there were a Biafran state, these 700 would have been safely airlifted out of enemy territory.
Theodor Herzl first made the idea of a Jewish state popular. Born in Budapest and studied law in Vienna, Herzl dedicated his life to literature and journalism. In 1891, Herzl was sent to France by a Viennese newspaper. In France, Herzl was shocked to find out that in the land of the French Revolution, anti-Semitism was well and alive. During his days in France, Alfred Dreyfus, Jewish French officer was falsely charged for giving French military documents to German agents. A political controversy that followed led to an outburst of anti-Semitism in France. The Dreyfus affair made Herzl to believe that “as long as anti-Semitism existed, assimilation would be impossible, and the only solution for majority of Jews would be organized emigration to a state of their own.” In 1896, Herzl published The Jewish State, where he advocated the establishment of a Jewish state. His friends thought it was a mad idea but the pamphlet got favorable responses and soon turned him into a career organizer and propagandist. In 1897, Herzl organized the first Zionist Congress in Basel. During the Congress attended by Jews from around the world, he declared, “We want to lay the foundation stone for the house, which will become the refuge of the Jewish nation. Zionism is a return to Judaism even before the return to the land of Israel.”
The night after, Susan Masid of the French Press Agency reported the horrifying incident thus: "Young Ibos with terrifying eyes and trembling lips told journalists in Aba that in the villages Nigerian troops came from behind, shooting and firing everywhere, shooting everybody who was running, firing into the house." In another account, William Norris writing in the Sunday Times of London had this to say: "I have seen things in Biafra this week, which no man should have to see. Sights to search the heart and sicken the conscience. I have seen children roasted alive, young girls torn in two by shrapnel, pregnant women eviscerated, and old men blown to fragments, I have seen these things and I have seen their cause: high-flying Russian Ilyushin jets operated by Federal Nigeria…" And in Ogwe, Newsweek correspondent described how a Nigerian Lt. Lamurde treated a poor and lonely boy who went in search of his parents in Ogwe. The unfortunate boy had his hands tied to his legs. He pleaded, "I am not a soldier, sweet Jesus, save me." But this did not register any sympathy. Instead, Lamurde pumped bullets into the boy's body and neck and his men dragged this innocent boy's corpse across the road and heaved it into the bushes.
Herzl died of a heart ailment on July 3rd, 1904 while the Zionist Movement was still debating whether to accept the British offer to establish a Jewish settlement in Uganda after the Sultan of Turkey blocked the proposed Jewish settlement in Sinai Peninsula. But before Herzl died, he had met 24-year-old Ze’eV Vladimir Jabotinsky at the Zionist Congress of 1904 in Basel.
Ze’eV Vladimir Jabotinsky was born in Odessa, Russia, on October 18, 1880. His father, a merchant who was held in high esteem by their community died when he was still a young boy. In his early years, he studied Hebrew, but his formal education was in a Russian school. His outstanding literary talent manifested itself from the very beginning. As a high school student, he translated Edgar Allen Poe’s famous work -The Raven, into Russia, and Dante’s work, into Hebrew. At the age of 18, the Russian daily, the Odesskie Novosti sent him to Switzerland as their correspondent. At the same time, he explored the inherent linguistic genius in him and acquired knowledge of English, German, French and Italian. In 1091, he returned to Russia and began to write a column for the newspaper. He soon became one of the most popular columnists in Russia. He translated into Russian poems and other classic literary works. He also wrote his own plays, novels and poetry. In 1903, a wave of anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia converted him into an active fighter for Zionism. He devoted all his time and resources to championing the Zionist cause, in the process subordinating his other literary and journalistic activities. Famous Russian writers like Maxim Gorki complained that Zionists had stolen him from Russian literature where a great future awaited him. His devotion to Jewish and Zionist politics was seen as a loss to Russian literature. When he died in August 3, 1940, in New York, he was remembered as a Zionist leader, journalist, orator, and a man of letters who founded the militant Zionist Revisionist movement that played an important role in the establishment of the State of Israel.
When in May 30, 1967, the Military Governor of the then Eastern Nigeria, Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, abiding by the resolutions of the joint session of the Advisory Committee of Chiefs and Elders and the Consultative Assembly of the Representative of the People, declared the Republic of Biafra, he did so not just as a survivalist's maneuver but rather as an imperative. Contrary to what revisionist historians are now claiming, the pogrom of 1966 was neither an isolated incident nor was it a reaction to one particular event in history. It was rather an escalation of what had been a continuous and systematic dislike, discrimination and massacre of Igbos in Nigeria. It happened in Jos in 1945. It happened in Kano in 1953. And just like the Jews know, Hitler’s Germany did not suddenly come out of the blues. It had a great lot of precedence.
In a report compiled by a British Administrative officer after the 1953 massacre in Kano, the officer warned, “No amount of provocation, short-term or long-term, can in any way justify their behavior…the seeds of the trouble which broke out in Kano on May 16 (1953) have their counterparts still in the ground. It could happen again, and only a realization and acceptance of the underlying causes can remove the danger of recurrence.”
Of course, there was no realization by neither the Nigerian government nor the Igbo themselves. There was neither a search nor an acceptance of the underlying causes. Thirteen years after, when it reoccurred, it took the lives of millions.
Northern Nigeria of 1962 and 1963 was very hostile to the Igbo. "Igbo-must-go" was a campaign many Northern political elite were encouraging. In existence was a Sardauna Brigade, a paramilitary organization maintained as a private army by the then Premier of Northern Nigeria but used as an instrument to intimidate the Igbo, especially after the controversial National Census of 1962-1963 that Igbo amongst other Nigerians contested the population figures produced by the North. In speeches after speeches at the Northern House of Assembly, antagonism against the Igbo were building up. There were calls to revoke all Certificates of Occupancy from the hands of the Igbo resident in the region. To-do-away-with-Igbo became the region's policy. In a 1964 speech in the House, Alhaji Usman Lima declared,
“Mr. Chairman, the North is for Northerners, East is for Easterners, West is for Westerners and the Federation is for all.”
The house applauded him.
And so was Alhaji Mustafa Ismaila Zanna Dujuna who declared that “First Northerners, second expatriates and third, non-northerners.”
These outbursts, prelude to the war was not simply dissident voices. Alhaji Ibrahim Musa Gashash, O.B.E, Minister of Land and Survey, told the house the following, “I would like to assure Members that having heard their demands about Ibos holding land in Northern Nigeria, my ministry will do all it can to see that the demands of Members are met. How to do this, when to do it, all these should not be disclosed. In the course, you will all see what will happen.” During this time, NPC, the northern political party published “SALAMA: Facts must be faced,” a booklet that launched a vicious and devastating attack on the Igbo. At the same time, the government of Western Nigeria published UPCAISM. This booklet blamed Igbo strangers of exploiting the land and resources of the Western Region. What followed was the purging of the Igbo from government positions.
After the death of Herzl, Jabotinsky became the primary symbol of the Zionist movement. An outstanding orator, he employed his skills towards “a dynamic and militant stand on behalf of maximal Zionist fulfillment.” He drew up concepts and formulated new ideas. In series of articles and lectures, he presented comprehensive Zionist programs. He visited Palestine where he perfected his Hebrew and obtained a first hand understanding of the situation on the ground. He did not limit his activities to the search for a Jewish state; he also began a campaign for the revival of Hebrew language. He translated classic books into Hebrew, and canvassed for Hebrew Day schools and community Universities for Jews in the Diaspora. He made every effort to prepare Jews in Diaspora for a return to Palestine. All along, he was bitterly opposed by Jewish assimilationists but loved by the youths. The assimilationists felt that rather than helping matters, Jabotinsky was fanning the amber of Jewish hatred. The assimilationists wanted to play it safe, be subdued, and avoid upsetting the world around them.
In 1917, Jabotinsky convinced the British to establish three Jewish battalions that fought against the Turks in Palestine. Jabotinsky enlisted as a private, took active part in the fighting under General Allenby. He was soon promoted into a Lieutenant. At the end of 1919, as the British demobilized, Jabotinsky fought to retain an armed Jewish Legion that would protect Jewish communities but was frustrated by the British. In 1920, however, Jabotinsky was stripped of his commission in Palestine for leading a Jewish Self-Defense Corps, which he organized, from Jewish legion soldiers. Jabctinsky’s corps had fought against Arabs who were massacring Jews in Jerusalem. For defending Jewish lives, the British sentenced him to 15 years in jail with hard labor. A worldwide outcry forced the British to free him. In 1921, he was elected to the World Zionist Executive and began to demand for mass immigration to Palestine and militant stand against the British anti-Zionist position.
In 1921 while on a visit to the United States with a delegation that included Prof. Albert Einstein, Professor Otto Warburg and Naham Sokolow, Jabotinsky heard about British plan to split that eastern part of the country known as Transjordan, from Palestine. The move caused misunderstanding amongst World Zionist Executives and Jabotinsky resigned in 1923. In 1925, in Paris, he proclaimed the creation of the World Union of Zionist Revisionists. From 1928-1929, Jabotinsky was in Palestine where he edited daily Hebrew newspaper “Doar Hayom”. Concerned about incessant Arab uprising usually instigated by the British, Jabotinsky formed an underground Jewish military force to defend Jews. When the British discovered it, Jabotinsky was barred from entering Palestine ever again.
Back in Europe, Jabotinsky preached Zionism. His mission, “The Jews in Palestine must not remain a minority, fed by a mere tickle of immigration, without arms for their protection, betrayed by the British Mandatory Power and ever threatened with extermination”. Jabotinsky fought against partition of Palestine and what he called “minimalism and against the whole atmosphere of constant compromise and surrender”. As pogroms continued in Palestine, he led those urging retaliation and opposed those advocating Harlage (self-restraint)
The Biafran surrender of 1970 did not bring an end to Igbo massacre. It did not because there was no realization by neither the Nigerian government nor the Igbo themselves that “the seeds of the trouble that led to the crises of the 60s have their counterparts still in the ground. There was neither a search nor an acceptance of the underlying causes.” It happened again many times in the 80s, 90s and again in the year 2000. In due course, it will happen again, until the Biafran imperative is addressed.
The Biafran surrender had not been the final. The continuous maltreatment and suspicion of the Igbo had once again led to a Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB). The Igbo Herzl might have reached his twilight days but the Igbo’s Ze’eV Vladimir Jabotinsky is on his way. A Jabotinsky who would take a dynamic and militant stand on behalf of maximum Igbo fulfillment. A Jabotinsky who would oppose the current Igbo leadership comfort zone - zone where minimalism and an atmosphere of constant compromise and surrender are the order of the day.
Those who fought the first Biafran War did it for the next generation. They have placed in the heart of any Igbo born of any age, in any place on earth, that there is an option to living in fear and perpetual irrelevance. They knew that their chances were slim, but at the same time, they understood that it might be a small step for a generation but a giant step for the subsequent generation. Just like the Europeans corrupted the Igbo life, the new colonialism - the Nigerian colonialism - has continued in that pattern. Igbo self-hatred, identity crisis, assimilation and suppression all signified different forms of losses that could not have been had Biafra been actualized. The reversal of the first attempt at Biafra has been catastrophic. It will continue to get worse until a new beginning in the opposite direction is initiated and sustained.
In this present direction, there may not be a true Igbo alive anywhere in the world. The death of the Igbo language, Igbo culture, and Igbo ways of life would then be a fact accomplished.
The Biafran effort is imperative not because Nigeria failed, even though she did, but because there is no other way for the Igbo to survive. Prior to the killings, the war and the intentional exclusion of the Igbo in the affairs of Nigeria, one cannot speak of the Biafran imperative. This time of peace - relative peace, is not a time to relax. It is rather, a time to prepare for the worst. The worst which must come because there is no realization by neither the Nigerian government nor the Igbo themselves that “the seeds of the trouble which broke out in the past have their counterparts still in the ground. There was neither a search nor an acceptance of the underlying causes.” The Biafran effort is imperative not because other groups in Nigeria are preparing to bolt but because there is no other way for the Igbo to survive. Nigeria has refused to reform itself and the Igbo must not “sacrifice their very existence as a people to the integrity of that ramshackle creation that has no justification either in history or in the freely expressed wishes of the people.” Even the eternal optimists who speed up when the traffic light is yellow are beginning to come to this sad conclusion.
Until the East understands that nobody will tell their story better than themselves and nobody will protect them better, their story will be one of perpetual tale of slaughtered souls without memory and without a memorial. Vigilance is the watchword of those whose very existence is threatened. Nobody ever throws a stone at a synagogue anywhere in the world without having his or her name printed on all major newspapers of the world. Obasanjo has been doing his dribbling and tackling of the east at the eastern half of the Nigerian field without any repercussion. In Okigwe, he entered the 18-yard box. He must be tackled down. Let the enemy side play a penalty than have an easy goal. It is easy to understand why the Igbo will like to forget. But how could they forget if the world around them is yet to say "NEVER AGAIN!". How could the Igbo forget that "He who is surrounded by enemies must guard his life.” How could they? How dare they forget that?
Jabotinsky in 1938 warned Polish Jewry about an impending doom following the rise of Hitler. “Either you liquidate the Diaspora,” he cried, “or the Diaspora will liquidate you…whoever of you will escape from the catastrophe, he or she will live to see the exalted moment of a great Jewish wedding; the rebirth and the rise of a Jewish State. I don’t know if I will be privileged to see it; my son will. I believe in this as I am sure that tomorrow morning the sun will rise.” He formed Betar, a generation of Jews that was “bleeding itself for Jewish causes…a generation that was willing to endure anything - vilification, slander, personal attack and all disappointments, great and petty, that a man born ahead of his time must suffer.” As Jabotinsky talked about Zionism, he was implicitly talking about the Israel of the mind as Herzl noted; “Zionism is a return to Judaism even before the return to the land of Israel.” The Igbo must begin the journey to Biafra, the homeland, through the road of Biafra of the mind. They must begin the search for their fast fading culture, language, norms and values. They must dig for their history, heritage and find a definition of what is home. Nigeria will not do none of these for them, rather, Nigeria, by its very nature would accelerate these losses.
Only those who believe in Santa Claus believe that we have seen the end of Igbo persecution in Nigeria. The genocide of the 60s has not been recognized for what it was. In some quarters, it has even been denied. A huge monument ought to have been built by all cities in the north where Igbo were massacred as a reminder, as a confession, and as a vow that never again… The crime against the Igbo should have no statute of limitation. The real beginning of the trial and prosecution of the suspects will be that time when the state of Biafra stands on its own. There are, today, Igbo refugees and Igbo exiles. With a Biafran State, there will no longer be an Igbo refugee. The state of Biafra is an inevitable necessity for the Igbo. They might as well begin to prepare for it as survivalists’ imperative while the Nigerian project continues on an irreversible wind down. They do not need to fight another war in order to get it. They need to demonstrate its imperative to them through self-determination anchored in consistency of purpose.
It is of destiny that the Igbo should not only have their homeland, which they already have, but also their own state. That is divinity. The Igbo State is the invisible support that the Igbo need if they have to survive in that precarious territory called Africa. To stop the degradation of Igbo life, faith and history, to return it to what it used to be, the Igbo need their own state. No amount of steadfastness, submission, and surrender will grant them peace and tranquility. Hermann Cohen was proved wrong about Jewish statehood by historical events. So shall those who opposed the establishment of an Igbo State. Whatever may be the universal mission of Igbo, a state will strengthen it rather than weaken it. All opposition to Igbo State will again be embarrassed as soon as one group in Nigeria reenacts a demonstration of the evil of Igbo powerlessness. It could happen as early as tomorrow.
Addendum: For the purpose of clarity and simplicity of thought, this essay intentionally focused on the Igbo with no reference to the ethnic minorities in the former Eastern Nigeria, like the Ibibio and the Ijaw, who share similar political and economic structure with Igbo. For better or for worse, their destiny will always be intertwined. And as has been proven over and over again, the tragedy of one of these ethnic groups is the tragedy of all of them.
REFERENCES: * Committee on Genocide, Nigeria/Biafra Conflict Ekwe Nche Organization P. O. Box 408250 Chicago, Il 60640
Ze’eV (Vladimir) Jabotinsky 1880-1940 Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
First Things, The Zionist Imperative Emil L. Fackenheim, Leadership U., The Telling the Truth Project
*Encyclopedia Britannica
”…a continuous and systematic dislike, discrimination and massacre of Igbos in Nigeria. It happened in Jos in 1945. It happened in Kano in 1953.”
WHEN THE BLOODY FOOLS WHO LINK THE 1967 GANG UP AGAINST NDIIGBO TO THE 1966 NZEOGWU DISTURBANCE, DID THEY ALSO FORGOT THAT AWUSA BASTARDS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ON MURDERING RAMPAGE DECADES BEFORE OUR COURAGEOUS SON TRIED TO BRING THE SITUATION TO AN END? SUCH THEREFORE THAT IF ANY CAN STILL EXPLAIN TO ME TO MY SATISFACTION WHY I SHOULD NOT HATE nigeria AND THE IDIOTS WHO SUPPORT HER, I’LL QUIT WRITING WITH A $1000.00 DONATION TO A CHARITY OF HIS/HER CHOICE!!!
___________________ BIAFRA: The land of my ancestors now, yesterday and always. So it will be! Posts: 2482 | From: Ala Igbo | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
Thank you for standing up to be counted on this issue in a very illuminating way as always.
Please disregard the baba-boyz (read OBJ boys) of this world. I assure you that in their heart of hearts they know the truth.
Someday, and that day may be in our life time, BiafraNigeria would die a natural death while still under the watch of Awusa and Yoroba and their British conspirators
___________________ "Udo, Njiko na Nwere onwe anyi" Posts: 53 | From: PH, BIAFRA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
OU and MeBiafra, Thank you guys for the clearity on which your post have brought on this very important issue. As Bro.Icheoku put it Nigerian's know the truth. The attempt to rewrite history of what happened and still happening to Ndi-igbo in nigeria, will not fly. Our duty as Biafrans is to continue to tell our story without fear or any form of discouragement. Sooner than later the international community/UNO will start listening. I have at every opportunity told Americans, Jews, Germans, and others the plight of Igbos in Nigeria. Nigerians can sit on their key board and tell all the lies about nigeria. Nigerians can cut and paste any silly write up that has no resembalance of our situation in nigeria just to feel good. It is certain that nigeria's days as a nation in numbered.
Posts: 88 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
