The word “strategy”, has a military origin. For simplicity, it can be
defined as a planned or mapped out technique or approach for achieving a
given objective or goal. In its struggle against Israeli continued
occupation of Palestine, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)
has a strategy. In its resistance against Apartheid South Africa, the
African National Council (ANC) had a strategy. The Indigenous People of
Biafra (IPOB)’s neo-Biafranism is a colorful, melodramatic and
media-savvy, but purposeless, movement. Not surprisingly, it has no
articulated objectives, and consequently, no strategy.
Earlier, in its fight against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and
Gaza Strip, in defiance of United Nations Resolution 242, the PLO
adopted a strategy of unrestrained guerrilla warfare against Israel,
including indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets. The strategy
proved ineffective because, although it unsettled Israel, it could not
defeat Israel, even if it is sustained and intensified for decades.
Essentially, it backfired because it portrayed the PLO as a terrorist
organization.
So, despite its inability to defeat Israel, it also lost its
international credibility; it was ostracized as a “terrorist”
organization by the governments of the most important countries of the
world. Consequently, the PLO changed its strategy. It backpedaled on its
guerrilla warfare. It embraced diplomacy, and burnished its
international image; it became diplomatically relevance. This was the
precursor to the botched President Bill Clinton brokered a peace
agreement between the PLO leader, Yasser Arafat, and the Israeli Prime,
Minister Yitzhak Rabin in the year, 2000.
In its fight against Apartheid South Africa, the ANC had a strategy.
Having learned from the mistakes of the PLO, it focused on building a
global diplomatic and economic alliance against Apartheid South Africa.
Although it periodically launched guerrilla attacks within South Africa
to impress the restive masses of Black South Africans, its fixation
remained on shocking the conscience of the world with the evils of
Apartheid. After nearly two decades of painstaking labor, the ANC
anti-Apartheid campaign had successfully troubled the conscience of the
world with the horrors of Apartheid.
Appalled by the atrociousness of Apartheid, the global community rallied
against Apartheid South Africa. Anti-Apartheid movements sprouted across
the world amongst student unions, labor unions, corporations, human
rights organizations, governments, etc. Many countries broke diplomatic
ties with South Africa, and corporations, universities, governments,
etc. disinvested from South Africa. Finally, the Apartheid government
buckled under the weight of this encircling international economic and
diplomatic pressure; it consigned Apartheid to the heaps of history.
Unlike the PLO and ANC, the IPOB has no legitimate grievance.
Consequently, it cannot genuinely rouse the world’s conscience against
the Nigerian government. Therefore, it found psychological refuge in
falsehood and cheap propaganda. Its trumped-up allegations against the
Nigerian government, like the enslavement of the Igbo and ongoing
extermination of the Igbo in Nigeria, are resounding nonsense; they ring
hollow in international circles. The global community realizes that,
like most Third World countries, Nigeria is muddling its way through the
21st Century; and by Third World standards and within the limits of
human frailties; Nigeria works for every Nigerian. There are tribalism
and ethnic injustices in Nigeria, and no particular ethnic group is
totally innocent of these vices.
As such, the IPOB agitation for an independent Biafra is strictly a
Nigerian internal affair; it does not elicit the concern and attention
of the international community. Ostensibly, IPOB’s goal is the creation
of an independent Biafra through a referendum. It is the prerogative of
the Nigerian government to hold such a referendum. Similar referendums
were held by the governments of Canada and Britain for separatist
regions of Quebec and Scotland respectively.
The Nigerian constitution has no provision for such a referendum.
Therefore, the first step towards a referendum on Biafran independence
is making a constitutional provision for a referendum. Ordinarily, IPOB
should have focused on making the federal government amenable to holding
a referendum on Biafran independence, and nudging the National Assembly
towards a constitutional amendment that will allow for a referendum.
Paradoxically, IPOB is working against these two objectives. It incites
violence, breaks the laws, and antagonizes the Nigerian government. As
such, IPOB has been proscribed as a terrorist organization by the
Nigerian government. How then can the referendum hold?
The earlier attempt to create Biafra between 1967 and 1970 was made
impossible by a number of factors: the reluctance of the ethnic
minorities of Eastern Region to be part of an Igbo dominated country;
the commitment of the federal government and the generality of Nigerians
to Nigerian unity; the opposition of African countries, as represented
by the Organization of Africa (OAU), to secession in general, and
Biafra, in particular; and the opposition of the British and American
governments to the dismemberment of Nigeria. The political and
geopolitical dynamics that made the earlier attempt at Biafra impossible
have not only remained in place but have been reinforced over the
decades. Therefore, Biafranism remains a senseless and fruitless
enterprise that can only bring the Igbo death, pains, and sorrow.
Nnamdi Kanu and his senior lieutenants know there cannot be a country,
Biafra. However, Biafran activism makes them relevant and makes them
very rich. So, the object of Kanu’s continued agitation for Biafra is
not to achieve Biafran independence but to retain his mesmeric sway on
his followers, which, in turn, builds his financial empire. Not
surprisingly, his speeches are not strategic. They are tendentious
rubbish – gossips and trivialities – that resonate with his credulous
and deluded followers. He gossips about Babangida and his late wife,
Miriam, and Jubril from Sudan; and prattles about other trifling issues
about Aso Rock. His speeches are a truculent blend of falsehood,
incitements, and insults. They nauseate discerning minds but enthrall
his ignorant and confused followers.
To his followers, he postures as a statesman promoting the Biafra cause
among European and American presidents and prime ministers and
international bureaucrats at the United Nations and European Union. One
salient element of the diplomatic protocol is reciprocity. Governments
negotiate with governments, presidents meet with presidents, foreign
ministers, foreign ministers, etc. There is neither a country, Biafra,
nor a government, government of Biafra, anywhere in the world. The UN is
an association of sovereign nations. Kanu represents no sovereign
nation. He is a fugitive, running away from the law of his country. In
addition, his speeches are vulgar, virulent, and provocative.
Invariably, they outrage the civilized and genteel sensibilities that
populate the United Nations, the European Union, and the corridors of
power in Western countries. So, on his “diplomatic” trips, who do you
think this Nigerian fugitive meets with?
Although his propagandists attempt to cast him as hobnobbing with the
powers that be on his “diplomatic trips”, he cannot meet with any worthy
member of any government or international organization. The central
question remains how does IPOB’s posturing, lies, and propagandistic
distortions advance the prospects of a referendum on Biafran
independence?
Tochukwu Ezukanma writes from Lagos, Nigeria.
0803 529 2908