CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The civil war in Nigeria was predicated by a number of factors, among which are located in the socio-political and constitutional reasons. Right from the colonial days, the unity of the country was on a fragile foundation1. Webster, Boahen and Tidy noted that Nigeria inherited a constitution from the British government which gave absolute majority to one region thereby promoting regional politics and political division in the country. Thus the events that led to the Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970) cannot be separated from ethnic and religious distrust between the three major groups: Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa/Fulani. InOkpeh’s word, “there is no contradicting the fact that Nigeria has a problematic existence”. Political practices and constitutions were divisive rather than unitive. Nigerians identified more with their regions and less with Nigeria2.
Prior to the Civil War, Nigeria had witnessed series of political crises. The most prominent were the 1945 Jos Riot in which 300 Igbo people died, the Kano Riot of 1953, the Census Crisis of 1962, the Federal Election Crisis of 1964 and the Coups and Counter Coups of 19663. The threat of secession by the Yoruba people of Nigeria is also worthy of mention. Some analysts have argued that these are major remote causes of the Nigerian Civil War. For instance, the 1953 Kano Riot occurred as a suspicion on the part of the Northern leaders that the Southern leaders were trying to force them into a national integration which they were not prepared for. In an attempt to educate the Northerners about the benefits of self-government, the Southerners led by Chief S. L. Akintola of the Action Group went to Kano to gather support. This eventually led to a four day rioting at Sabongari, Kano between 16th and 19th of May, 1953. The implication of this riot apart from loss of lives is that it worsened the relationship between the Southern and Northern leaders.
As a condition for accepting independence, they demanded that the country continue to be divided into three regions with the North having a clear majority. Igbo and Yoruba leaders, anxious to obtain an independent country at all costs, accepted the Northern demands.
In the threat of secession by the Yoruba people, the status of Lagos was a sore point for the AG which did not want Lagos, a Yoruba town which was at that time the Federal Capital and seat of national government to be designated as the Capital of Nigeria if it meant loss of Yoruba sovereignty. Contrary to this position, the NCNC was anxious to declare Lagos, by virtue of it being the “Federal Capital Territory4” as “no man’s land” – a declaration which as could be expected angered the AG which offered to help fund the development of another territory in Nigeria as “Federal Capital Territory” and then threatened secession from Nigeria if it didn’t get its way. The threat of secession by the AG was tabled, documented and recorded in numerous constitutional conferences, including the constitutional conference held in London in 1954 with the demand that a right of secession be enshrined in the constitution of the emerging Nigerian nation to allow any part of the emergent nation to opt out of Nigeria, should the need arise.
In the face of sustained opposition by the NCNC delegates, later joined by the NPC and backed by threats to view maintenance of the inclusion of secession by the AG as treasonable by the British, the AG was forced to renounce its position of inclusion of the right of secession a part of the Nigerian constitution. Had such a provision been made in the Nigerian constitution, later events which led to the Nigerian/Biafran civil war would have been avoided. The pre-independence alliance between the NCNC and the NPC against the aspirations of the AG would later set the tone for political governance of independent Nigeria by the NCNC/NPC and lead to disaster in later years in Nigeria.
The Census Crisis of 1962 was based on ethnic suspicion where the Southerners assumed that the Census Director had been influenced to perpetuate Northern agenda. While the Federal Election Crisis of 1964 centered around regional politics in which United Progressive Grand Alliance (comprising of NCNC and AG) and Nigerian National Alliance (comprising of NPC and NNDP). UPGA is south dominated while NNA is north dominated. Conversely, this pattern of political setting was crisis and on the large scale, full of blown coup d’état.
On January 15, 1966 a group of army officers, mostly Southeastern Igbos, overthrew the government and assassinated the Federal Prime Minister and the Premiers of the Western and Northern regions5. The Federal military government that assumed power was unable to calm down ethnic tensions or produce a constitution acceptable to all sections of the country. Its efforts to establish the Federal structure greatly increased tensions and led to another coup in July, 1966. The impact of the civil war on Nigerias foreign policy was promoting the peace and security of Nigeria to a large extent promoting strong neighbour’s since the foreign powers that supported Biafra did so through neighbouring states . To this end, Nigeria promoted the establishment of ECOWAS for securing Nigeria’s interest as well as cooperation within the sub-region. The coup related massacre of thousands of Igbo in the north prompted hundreds of thousands of them to return to the Southeast where increasingly strong Igbo secessionist emerged.
Fakayode reported that the July 1966 counter coup was followed by further civil disturbances in both the North and Eastern parts of the country. The Military Governor of Eastern Region, Lt. Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu refused to recognize Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon as Head of State in succession to Aguiyi Ironsi who was assassinated in previous coup. Lt. Col. Ojukwu had preferred a senior military officer in the person of Brigadier Ogundipe to succeed Ironsi instead of Gowon.
According to Ajetunmobi hostilities broke out between Lt. Co, Ojukwu, the military Governor of Eastern Region and General Gowon, Head of the Federal Military government when the latter divided the four regions into 12 States in 1967. Soon, Lt. Col. Emeka Ojukwu declared the independence of the Republic of Biafra. The ensuing civil war was bitter and bloody ending in the defeat of Biafra in 19706.
It is worthy of note that all states have some kind of relations with one another. No state in the modern times can avoid the involvement in the international affairs, and this involvement must be systematic and based on certain principles. In other words, states have to behave with one another in a particular manner. The framing of the foreign policy is, therefore, an essential activity of a modern state, for a state without foreign policy is like a ship without rider which may drift aimlessly and may be swept away by a storm of current events. What a state intends to do is defined by its interests; what is actually able to achieve is a function of its military and economic capability as well as the quality of its diplomacy.
It is important to accentuate that Nigeria’s foreign policy started at moderate level since independence in 1960 and was based on the century old relationship between Nigeria and her colonial master Britain. Even the speech of the Prime Minister, Tafawa Balewa on Independence Day October 1, 1960 seemed to indicate that Nigeria was properly focused and her mind set firmly directed at the goal of her foreign policy. He declared thus;
I have indeed very confident that, based on the happy experience of a successful partnership our future relations with the United Kingdom will be more cordial than ever, bound together as we shall be in the common wealth by a common allegiance to her majesty Queen Elizabeth whom we proudly acclaim as Queen of Nigeria (hence) we are grateful to the British Officers who we have known, first as masters and then as leaders and finally as partners but always as friends7
The attention of this study was drawn to the key events that took place in the Nigerian civil war as it affected the unity, economy and populace of the country as well as Nigeria’s foreign policy up till 1976. During the fratricidal civil war, Nigeria had thought that by turning to her traditional friends in the West for assistance, the war would be expeditiously prosecuted. Unfortunately, this did not work out as the so-called traditional friends turned her request for arms and ammunitions down thus introducing a new dimension to the country’s perception of friends or enemies in external relations. Consequently, Nigeria turned towards Eastern Europe for assistance and was able to defeat the armies of the Biafran secessionist group.
Aim and Objectives of the Study
The aim of the study is to examine the Nigerian civil war and its foreign policy from 1970 to 1976 while its specific objectives are as follows:
- Examine the major events that took place in Nigeria from independence up till the civil war;
- Discuss the role which the Nigerian Civil War played in defining the country’s foreign policy;
- Evaluate the impact of the Civil War on Nigeria domestic policies in regional diplomacy;
- Discuss Nigeria’s external relations during the Civil War period;
Scope of the Study
This study covers the events that led to the Nigerian Civil War, the Nigerian Civil War, its aftermath and consequences, foreign policies up till the Civil War, during the Civil War and after the Civil War up till 1976. It covers strategic areas such as Nigeria’s relation with the United States, France, Russia and other countries of interest to Nigeria; the impact of the Civil War on the conduct of Nigeria’s foreign policy afterwards.