British Biafra Policy Challenged

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32052, 29 July 1969, Page 6

British Biafra Policy Challenged

The contention by Britain that it is wrong for Biafra to attempt to secede from Nigeria was challenged by Mr R. N. Kennaway, senior lecturer in the political science department at the University of Canterbury.

Mr Kennaway spoke after an address to students by the first secretary of the British High Commission in Wellington (Mr D. Tonkin), who said that the British Government believed its only realistic and honourable policy was to work for the restoration of Nigerian federal unity. Mr Tonkin said that an attempt by a group of Ibos to deal with a disturbed and difficult situation early in 1967 by armed secession was wrong. It was also wrong to compel 4.5 m neighbours from other tribes to join the secession.

It was not only wrong for them, but for Nigeria and Africa. African leaders, better than any others, know that a successful separatist political movement, manipulating traditional tribal animosities and motivated by the sophisticated economic and political ambitions of its leaders, would tear at the existing borders of Africa. “It would encourage separatism, inspired by the worst aspects of tribalism, everywhere in Africa,” Mr Tonkin said. “That is why the British Government believes that its

only realistic and honourable policy is to work for the restoration of the federal unity of Nigeria, and we support the Federal Government on these main issues of this tragic civil war.”

“Many Precedents” Mr Kennaway said it should not be assumed that an independent state could not be built by a part of Nigeria. There were many historical precedents for this. He agreed a unilateral sus-

pension by Britain of arms shipments would not be a particularly constructive move, but Britain should have exerted more pressure towards a negotiated settlement. Mr Tonkin said statements made in an editorial in "The Times” did not represent official policy of Nigeria. One was a statement by Brigadier Hassan Hatsina, chief of staff of the Federal Army, who had said: “Personally, 1 would not feed somebody I am fighting.” “The

Times” had added: “That of course includes women and children.” "You can imagine him being needled by a Western reporter and making that comment," Mr Tonkin said. The other report was of a statement by Chief Awolowo, a leading member of the Nigerian Federal Executive Council, who had argued that starvation was legitimate and that he was opposed to the shipment of relief supplies. “But in making an evaluation the official statements have to be considered and these have denied that Nigeria has a policy of mass starvation," Mr Tonkin said. A student asked whether official statements might not be regarded as propaganda. Mr Tonkin said that Chief Awolowo had no doubt been taken aside and “been given a fair wigging.” The facts were that the Federal Government had agreed to a nine-point relief plan put forward by the Organisation for African Unity, but when it was put to Colonel Ojukwu, of Biafra, he had objected to a river route for relief supplies. “Colonel Ojukwu could, of course, have ended acute hunger in the areas under his control months ago by agreeing to a surface route, or daylight flights, or both,” Mr Tonkin said.