Traditionally, Africa has made headlines. The continent is no stranger to such phenomena, be it war, drought or famine. It may seem odd, then to address the Biafra conflict now a conflict that ended in 1970, after all. The Biafra conflict in Nigeria, however is peculiar in that the West and the Russians were on the same side at the height of the Cold War in the 1960s with respect to the protection of the Nigerian state and thus the dominance of Hausa. Although what should be of continuing interest today may only be of academic interest, it is that Biafra was not the last of Africa’s ethnic wars and the world was to witness and can be said to have set a precedent for ethnic strife in many respects. It probably turned Nigeria into a military dictatorship under different dictators, too. For this reason, in African history, it is almost as important as the much earlier Boer War in South Africa.Do you want to learn more? try this web-site
It was basically a tribal war between the Ibo and Hausa peoples for supremacy, as dynamic as the conflict was. The perfidy of British policy in this regard eventually contributed to the preservation of an autocratic and reactionary ethnic rule under reactionaries who murdered and maimed Biafrans mercilessly, who were technically Nigerians to save Nigeria. Remarkably, Nigeria did not fall off the map, but it could have done very well The fact that Nigeria did not fall off the map was mainly the product of British policy in the war with Biafra. We see the multifaceted face of imperialism that artificially separated citizens elsewhere by British politics, functioning here as a unifying force for the protection of a tribal oligarchy. According to Frederick Forsyth, Britain became an unwitting and aware accessory to the genocide by the Nigerian government against Biafrans in search of this goal, which was ostensibly to protect British commercial interests. At the time Mr. Forsyth, who later became famous for his novels, happened to be stationed in Nigeria as a journalist and saw most of the conflict; the different aspects of which he briefly set out in a book called ‘The Biafra Story.’
The British government armed the Nigerian state with all kinds of modern weapons in pursuit of its diabolical strategy in Nigeria while openly proclaiming neutrality, which was then unleashed on hapless Biafrans who merely upheld their rights to avoid their extinction as a citizens. In this dispute, which is of constant interest to the British public and current contemporary global opinion, the classic perfidy of imperialism was thus brought out. Why am I saying this? Since the Anglo-American effort to overthrow Iraq reveals a similar cover-up by specious means and fabrications, but to an entirely different outcome.
Additionally, the Biafra war is of ongoing historical significance, as it was perhaps probably the first conflict in which human misery and poverty were disseminated through the media to a global audience. It is also a constant testimony to the fact that while it may be able to conquer a people and its territories, it is an entirely different matter to win over their hearts and minds, and this is more than topical interest at present in other parts of the world. It also shows that the loss of political influence can also result in the decimation of ethnic groups that were historically dominant. In Syria today, something that is just as important as it was in the Nigerian civil war.