November 14, 2005

Biafran Gratitude

by Odi Moghalu (Los Angeles, California) --- The Igbo and Biafran experience as it was between 1966 - 1970 was a traumatic one well documented and rehearsed in a resurgent spirit of nostalgia these days in the vast array of information channels across Nigeria and myriad Internet sites. Indeed it’s important to remember particularly with the increasing victimizing onslaught of the Nigerian government against the nation’s peoples.

Losing an approximate population of one million in a tragic episode in which hundreds of thousands where clobbered and butchered to death, bombed, shot and starved to an unfortunate demise, towns and villages destroyed under the merciless onslaught of a ruthless, and effective war machine of the Nigerian army (obtaining military assistance from Britain, U.S.S.R. and Egypt) which the Biafrans made enormous contributions in building prior to the war, was evidence that the enemy who was few years back partners of the same citizenry and binding goals of nationhood, could not tolerate (for the sake of a few army officers regrettably but violently sacking a corrupt regime) the partnership of this geopolitical region and for some, even their very existence hence the practical evidence of genocide that ensued.

The recurrence of violence against the Igbo (as in massacres in Jos, 1945 and Kano, 1953) had reached an explosive state in the aftermath of July, 1966 coup. The unleash of genocidal war became an unsuccessful yet tragic experience of fate which the Biafrans hold both with a mournful and inspiring reflection. A malevolent intent motivated by xenophobia but wedged by the mercies of Almighty God through the commiseration and bravado of many.

As a result Biafrans give thanks to God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ for their continued survival the frustration of this inimical intent through a gloomy period of harrowing tragedy. Biafrans will not forget its citizens, leaders, military and civil, scientists and soldiers who died (our best heroes) in the battle for its freedom. Advisers to the Head of State; Akanu Ibiam, Michael Okpara, Eni Njoku, Nnamdi Azikiwe etc Military; Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, Phillip Effiong, Hilary Njoku, Alexander Madiebo, Tim Onwuatuegwu, etc Scientists; Ben Nwosu, Godian Ezekwe, Roy Umenyi etc. Communications; Okon Okon Ndem, Uche Chukwumerije etc.

Indeed there are so many to mention and are in documented history. Biafrans will always cherish, honor and preserve their memories. Biafrans are grateful to the living heroes of the war who paid a heavy price for her people. May the remnants of their earthly sojourn be extended with divine favour. Biafrans are grateful to the United States and Israel for their stand and support (though measured) against genocide. Israel, faced with the 1967 conflict with hostile neighbors yet made a significantly cherished contribution. We are grateful to France for seeing, though lately, the need for the recognition of a country that so desperately needs to be free from the bondage of ethnically incompatible nationalities and the catastrophic product of such coerced union. Biafrans salute the bold efforts at recognition diplomatic and military support of countries like Cote d’Ivoire, Tanzania, Zambia and Haiti; Gabon not only provided support as others but and Equatorial Guinea which provided a base for the many dangerous relief flights into it’s blockaded enclave. The Joint Church Aid (JCA) also known as Jesus Christ Airline as named by the daredevil pilots who for almost two years refused to allow starvation to be used as a weapon of war, flying in about 60,000 tons of humanitarian aid through 5,314 extremely dangerous missions. Canairelief of Canada, Nordchurchaid from Scandanevia in Europe and Holy Ghost Airline From Ireland did the unbelievable. The vow by the Nigerian government to shoot down unarmed JCA airplanes flying in and out of Biafra forced them to take more dangerous routes and some crashed even when they were not under enemy fire.

Biafrans are eternally grateful to those who transited from this life through such a noble and selfless sacrifice. Count Carl Gustaf Von Rosen, the Swede nobleman, veteran pilot and genius who hatched the Minicon Fighter Planes (Biafran Babies) to reduced the constant air attacks from the Nigerian Airforce against the relief flights. Frederick Forsyth British Broadcasting Corporation correspondent who defected to Biafran having witnessed the pain and agony of Biafra which his government contributed immensely to. CBC’s Stanley Burke who thanks to, for the first time in its history, famine and starvation and humanitarian response were seen nightly on world television. May our Gratitude be extended to all especially those who made our dangerously precarious cause theirs and don’t have to. May we show appreciation the few alive and to their relatives wherever any Biafran can reach them and through organizations as Massob, Biafran Foundation, Ekwe-Nche, Nzuko Umuigbo WorldWide, Coalition of Igbo and Biafran Organizations.

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord”

Long Live Biafra!

Odi Moghalu
Odimoghalu@hotmail.com
Los Angeles, California

Posted by Administrator at 04:15 PM | Comments (0)

May 17, 2005

Self-Determination of Nations

“All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development….” ~~~ Article 1.1, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.

Many civil wars are provoked by secession crises in which minority groups seek to secede from existing States. Assuredly, for obvious reasons of political, economic and cultural dominance and accruing benefits from such inequities, the ruling ethnic, racial and economic class group(s) in government object to these secession bids and often violent confrontation is the result. Human history is replete with such contemporaneous political events despite its common features of attrition, destruction, and tragedy. The cases of Eritrea, previously an annex of Ethiopia in the horn of Africa, East Timor formerly in Indonesia, Cabinda in Angola, South Sudan, Kurdish region in Iraq, Kashmir between India and Pakistan, and so on remain a few of the myriad cases interspersed around the globe. Though each case bears its peculiar properties that spot their distinct nature, they all point to the fact of political arrangements that attest to forced amalgamation of true nations – a nation of natural birth and creation. That naturally entails a people bearing a collective history, language and culture. In some cases, additional factors of geographical contiguity contribute to acquiesced unions.

Since the right of peoples to self-determination exists as such in modern international law and is an internationally recognized principle, why does it not apply to the people of Tibet, Kashmir, Kurdish region, Tamils of Sri Lanka and other territories? All too often, self-determination is a right to be defended in lofty terms when it is politically advantageous and to be rejected when it’s not. Many consider it a stunning fact that the United States, France, England, Germany, Russia and Italy rolled their troops and tanks into Kosovo (former Yugoslavia) to preserve the peace and secure human rights and self-determination, but they may not be in support of such in other developing nations. There are various reasons for that wrong and right as often perceived by the parties involved to their advantage. But one thing is certain. As espoused in International law, peoples as individuals have the right to self-determination in order to guarantee for the future better global security and stability. The long way to go have been so for these factors:

1. International Law is political and in some cases wears a myth that with law we enter the secure, stable and determinate. In reality we simply engage in discursive political practice that often ignore the underlying factors that plague human relations and cause enduring friction within distinct cases of conflict.

2. Peculiarity of cases that demand unique applications to resolve as in the provision on internal autonomy suffer complete neglect or insufficient attention.

3. States do not encourage the breakup of other states because virtually all states are vulnerable. In today’s world, there are more than 2000 thousand ethnic groups but about 210 States.

4. As more and more newly independent States took their seats in the United Nations, the balance of voting power within the organization shifted in their favour. It was in their interest to regularize de-colonization, and law followed reality. The UN General Assembly Declaration 1541 on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 1960 took positive effect to the political freedom of most nations particularly in Africa and Asia. But colonization was only defined as forced rule on these nations by European governments. A perspective that gave selective recognition on the malformation of multinational states created through the now-discredited historical right to conquest and domination. The domestic rule of Ethnic nationalities on one another and the coerced foreign amalgamation of these groups were still lost in the context of the colonial experiment. The dominant States whose collective interests were variously shaped in the embodiment of the declaration limited the right to Statehood to the context of external de-colonization, that is, independence for each colonial territory from each colonial rule.

5. Historical and conflicting subterranean factors between and within dominant groups and minority groups.

Again, the causes of agitation for self-determination remain a political order where the detrimental effects of public policy are imposed upon national minorities in multinational states, leading frequently to their incorporation into the lower caste or underclass of the dominant majority, a position that leaves them at a permanent disadvantage in competition for wealth, status, education, and all other socio-economic needs. When dominant ethnic groups ignore the socio-economic and cultural identity needs and rights of other peoples as security of lives and property, equal socio-economic opportunities, resort to legal redress and fair dispensation of justice in respect and protection of the rule of law within the same state, self-determination becomes an attractive alternative. Even cases of political representation at the center are often unsatisfactory when the group(s) does not identify with the center or want to be part of that political community. Worst case-scenario are when discriminating policies lead to inequities, poverty, intolerance, friction and ultimately destruction of lives and property.

Nations like Eritrea, East Timor, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and old Soviet Republic are ready experiences that point to peaceful and violent dissolution of nations within states. States like Czechoslovakia dissolved peacefully. But most attained their objective of self-determination neither by consent of the dominating ethnic, racial or class groups nor by their acquiescence to international accords but by political agitation and military pressure that arose as a natural resentment of extended perpetration of oppression and a desperate longing for freedom. Self-determination, it is important to note, is not a concept born of an objective in political destabilization but of freedom and security. Self-determination is even in harmony with democracy. If democracy means the rule of the people, by the people, for the people, then the principle of self-determination secures that no one people may rule another.

Critics argue that the principles embodied in international policy induce the actors in secession crisis to engage in violent conflict to further their goals rather than seek peaceful resolution of their differences. But such arguments are not supported by reality. As often as in myriad cases there are peaceful appeals, demonstrations and conferences that demands are often turned down repeatedly by the ruling State. To accuse those who support freedom or self-determination of encouraging separatism, is as foolish and hypocritical as accusing those who advocate freedom of divorce of encouraging the destruction of family ties.

The United Nations historic conference on the right to self-determination in August 15 2000 in the unanimous adoption of its resolution affirmed the UN General Assembly Resolution 48/93 of December 1993 in which was recalled;

The relevant resolutions regarding the violation of the right of peoples to self-determination and other human rights as a result of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, adopted by the Commission on Human Rights at its 36th, 37th, 38th, 39th, 40th, 41st, 42nd, 43rd, 44th, 45th, 46th, 47th, 48th, 49th, sessions. …

and also reaffirmed its

….resolutions 35/35 B of 14 November 1980, 36/10 of 28 October 1981, 37/42 of 3 December 1982, 38/16 of 22 November 1983, 39/18 of 23 November 1984, 40/24 of 29 November 1985, 41/100 of 4 December 1986, 42/94 of 7 December 1987, 43/105 of 8 December 1988, 44/80 of 8 December 1989, 45/131 of 14 December 1990, 46/88 of 16 December 1991 and 47/83 of 16 December 1992.

These are basic pointers to the global legitimacy of the cause for renegotiation of relations amongst groups living together in multinational states. But, an overall fact remains that whether self-determination takes the form of creation of a state, federal entity or a confederation of states, ethnic power-sharing arrangements must be explored. Modern nations can in the least grant real autonomy to various ethnic nationalities or at the best total sovereignty as new nation-states.

Posted by Administrator at 10:47 PM | Comments (0)