Africa has traditionally made headlines. Whether its war, drought or famine, the continent is no stranger to such phenomena. Thus it might seem strange to discuss about the Biafra conflict now; a conflict that after all ended in 1970. However the Biafra conflict in Nigeria is unique in that at the height of the Cold War in the 1960s the West and the Russians found themselves on the same side vis-à-vis the preservation of the Nigerian state and thereby Hausa supremacy. While that might only be of academic interest today what should be of abiding interest is that Biafra was not the last of the ethnic conflicts Africa and the world was to witness and in many respects can be said to have set a template for ethnic strife. Arguably it also changed Nigeria into a military dictatorship under various dictators. For this reason it is about as relevant in Africa’s history as the much earlier Boer war in South Africa.

As complex as the struggle was it was essentially a tribal struggle between the Ibo and Hausa peoples for dominance. In this respect the perfidy of British policy led inevitably to the preservation of an autocratic and reactionary tribal dictatorship under reactionaries who mercilessly killed and maimed Biafrans who were technically Nigerians for preserving Nigeria. Remarkably thereby Nigeria didn’t fall off the map but it very well could have.That Nigeria didn’t fall off the map was largely the result of British policy in the Biafra conflict. Through British policy we see the multifaceted face of imperialism which elsewhere divided people artificially, here acting as a unifying force for preservation of a tribal oligarchy. In pursuance of this aim which was presumably for preserving British commercial interests, Britain became an unwitting and conscious accessory to genocide by the Nigerian government against Biafrans according to Frederick Forsyth. Mr. Forsyth who later became famous for his novels happened to be stationed as a journalist in Nigeria at the time and saw much of the conflict; the various dimensions of which he has succinctly put down in a book called ‘The Biafra Story.’

In pursuance of its diabolical policy in Nigeria while publicly avowing neutrality the British government armed the Nigerian state with all sorts of modern weaponry which were then unleashed on hapless Biafrans who were merely upholding their rights aimed at preventing their elimination as a people. Thereby the classic perfidy of imperialism was brought out in this conflict which is of abiding interest to the British public and modern contemporary global opinion. Why do I say this? Because a similar cover up through specious means and fabrications albeit to an entirely different result is seen in the Anglo- American campaign of destruction of Iraq.

The Biafra conflict is of continuing historical interest additionally as it was also perhaps the first conflict where human suffering and destitution were disseminated to a global audience through the media. It is also an abiding testimony to the fact that while it may be able to conquer a people and its territory, winning over their hearts and minds is an altogether different matter and this is more than of topical interest in other parts of the world at present. It also brings to focus that often loss of political power can result in decimation of previously dominant ethnic groups. Something that is just as relevant today in Syria as it was in the Nigerian civil war.