Biafra 1967-1970: Water Strategies in Times of War
Hello world! Today's post is going to be a bit different from the previous ones. I am investigating a particular case in history, in which water had an only indirect, but still major, political role: the Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970), also called the Biafran War.
I chose to talk about this topic because I found out about this devastating war and the suffering of the Igbo people of Biafra through a wonderfully-written book by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie I read about 6 years ago. Since then, I have remained very interested in Nigerian, particularly in Igbo culture. This post, however, is not going to tell the story of the war. If you want to know more about it, there is plenty of good literature on the subject. Rather, this article is going to focus on one particular aspect of the war, which has hitherto been somewhat overlooked: namely, the strategic role of water resources. I chose the example of Biafra out of personal interest, but the discussion can certainly serve other cases of warfare in Africa and in the world.
As you can see on the map, Biafra is almost completely surrounded by water, be it the Atlantic Ocean or the River Niger. Hence during the Civil War, the control, or lack thereof, of those waters, and especially of cities such as Port Harcourt and Onitsha, was to play a crucial role.
a) Onitsha
Because rivers are natural borders and enable connections between territories, their control is a very valuable asset, especially in times of war. Onitsha is a small city, but it is located on the River Niger and its control was therefore viewed as crucial by each side. The battle of Onitsha lasted more than 5 months, from October 4 1967 to March 20 1968. The aim of the Nigerian army was mainly to cross the River Niger. The First Invasion lasted only a week and ended with a Biafran victory, but it wasn't long until the USSR and the United Arab Republic began bombing the city, causing thousands of deaths and casualties among the civilian population (Umar, 2013). This strong international involvement undoubtedly helped Nigerian troops cross the river in December 1967, and in March 1968 Nigeria had captured Onitsha (Umar, 2013).
b) Port Harcourt
Due to its location by the Atlantic, Port Harcourt was another strategic possession of Biafra, since it allowed for international communication and commercial activities, notably the importation of food supplies. This is why it was equally necessary for Nigerian troops to seize control of the city, and in this they succeeded on May 24, 1968 after a two-month-long battle. Biafran fighters strongly involved in this battle as well, and a message was sent over the independentist media Radio Biafra for the defense of the city (Duyile, 2016 ; Wikipedia, 2018*).
The role of the Nigerian Navy
Through its primary role as protector of maritime borders, the Navy played a key role in the ultimate victory of Nigeria. Firstly, it supported the air and land forces and captured some places (Duyile, 2016). More importantly, as early as May 1967, the Navy was ordered to impose a blockade on Eastern Biafra, at Port Harcourt and in the Bonny Littoral, thereby isolating and denying Biafra access to its maritime resources. This triggered an economic crisis within Biafra, as importations through harbors were now made practically impossible, and also as the region had large oil resources which were thus seized by Nigeria (Duyile, 2016; Chukwuma et al, 2015). The final capture of Port Harcourt, to which the Navy greatly contributed, secured Nigeria's control over these oil resources and was thus regarded by the federal army as a turning point in the war (Duyile, 2016).
Further, the Navy was able to easily defeat the Biafrans in the Bonny Bight (Chukwuma et al, 2015).
I chose to talk about this topic because I found out about this devastating war and the suffering of the Igbo people of Biafra through a wonderfully-written book by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie I read about 6 years ago. Since then, I have remained very interested in Nigerian, particularly in Igbo culture. This post, however, is not going to tell the story of the war. If you want to know more about it, there is plenty of good literature on the subject. Rather, this article is going to focus on one particular aspect of the war, which has hitherto been somewhat overlooked: namely, the strategic role of water resources. I chose the example of Biafra out of personal interest, but the discussion can certainly serve other cases of warfare in Africa and in the world.
 |
Map of Biafra. Credits: Eric Gaba (Wikimedia Commons Users - Sting)
|
As you can see on the map, Biafra is almost completely surrounded by water, be it the Atlantic Ocean or the River Niger. Hence during the Civil War, the control, or lack thereof, of those waters, and especially of cities such as Port Harcourt and Onitsha, was to play a crucial role.
a) Onitsha
Because rivers are natural borders and enable connections between territories, their control is a very valuable asset, especially in times of war. Onitsha is a small city, but it is located on the River Niger and its control was therefore viewed as crucial by each side. The battle of Onitsha lasted more than 5 months, from October 4 1967 to March 20 1968. The aim of the Nigerian army was mainly to cross the River Niger. The First Invasion lasted only a week and ended with a Biafran victory, but it wasn't long until the USSR and the United Arab Republic began bombing the city, causing thousands of deaths and casualties among the civilian population (Umar, 2013). This strong international involvement undoubtedly helped Nigerian troops cross the river in December 1967, and in March 1968 Nigeria had captured Onitsha (Umar, 2013).
b) Port Harcourt
Due to its location by the Atlantic, Port Harcourt was another strategic possession of Biafra, since it allowed for international communication and commercial activities, notably the importation of food supplies. This is why it was equally necessary for Nigerian troops to seize control of the city, and in this they succeeded on May 24, 1968 after a two-month-long battle. Biafran fighters strongly involved in this battle as well, and a message was sent over the independentist media Radio Biafra for the defense of the city (Duyile, 2016 ; Wikipedia, 2018*).
 |
| Port Harcourt, view of the harbour. Credits: https://www.vesselfinder.com/ports/PORT-HARCOURT-NIGERIA-1112 |
Through its primary role as protector of maritime borders, the Navy played a key role in the ultimate victory of Nigeria. Firstly, it supported the air and land forces and captured some places (Duyile, 2016). More importantly, as early as May 1967, the Navy was ordered to impose a blockade on Eastern Biafra, at Port Harcourt and in the Bonny Littoral, thereby isolating and denying Biafra access to its maritime resources. This triggered an economic crisis within Biafra, as importations through harbors were now made practically impossible, and also as the region had large oil resources which were thus seized by Nigeria (Duyile, 2016; Chukwuma et al, 2015). The final capture of Port Harcourt, to which the Navy greatly contributed, secured Nigeria's control over these oil resources and was thus regarded by the federal army as a turning point in the war (Duyile, 2016).
Further, the Navy was able to easily defeat the Biafrans in the Bonny Bight (Chukwuma et al, 2015).
Despite having some logistical weaknesses, it successfully defended the Nigerian side and was able to maintain excellent relations with its foreign suppliers, which naturally helped win the war (Chukwuma et al, 2015).
In psychological terms, its role was equally decisive: "the Navy’s blockade created a siege mentality, a psychological feeling of being encircled with nowhere to go" (Duyile, 2016).
Implications for people living in Biafra
a) Famine
The total economic isolation of Biafra is one of the major causes of the great Biafran famine that was widely reported in Western media during the war, along with the massive influx of Igbo refugees, conscription of men and mobilisation of materials, and the capture of food surplus areas by Nigerian troops (Iwuagwu, 2012). Therefore, here, the politicization of water resources affected agriculture in an indirect way (see article on Egypt's agriculture to contrast).
b) Tribal populations
This subject has enjoyed very little coverage, but it is interesting to note that tribal populations experienced the war mostly as victims. The war happened on their territories without their consent, and this was especially hard for those living by the River Niger on Biafran territory, since they, too, were affected by the blockade. Their situation exemplifies the implications that the politicization of water borders can have for marginal communities: the mere geographical position of these tribes confined them within borders they did not decide upon (Daniyan, 2017).
In psychological terms, its role was equally decisive: "the Navy’s blockade created a siege mentality, a psychological feeling of being encircled with nowhere to go" (Duyile, 2016).
Implications for people living in Biafra
a) Famine
The total economic isolation of Biafra is one of the major causes of the great Biafran famine that was widely reported in Western media during the war, along with the massive influx of Igbo refugees, conscription of men and mobilisation of materials, and the capture of food surplus areas by Nigerian troops (Iwuagwu, 2012). Therefore, here, the politicization of water resources affected agriculture in an indirect way (see article on Egypt's agriculture to contrast).
b) Tribal populations
This subject has enjoyed very little coverage, but it is interesting to note that tribal populations experienced the war mostly as victims. The war happened on their territories without their consent, and this was especially hard for those living by the River Niger on Biafran territory, since they, too, were affected by the blockade. Their situation exemplifies the implications that the politicization of water borders can have for marginal communities: the mere geographical position of these tribes confined them within borders they did not decide upon (Daniyan, 2017).
 |
| Logo of the independentist radio. Credits: https://www.liveonlineradio.net/fr/english/radio-biafra.htm |
The Biafran War is a striking example in African history of the key role of water resources in times of war, be they directly or indirectly involved in the conflict. I hope you enjoyed this article, comments are welcome!
Sarah Champagne
Sarah Champagne
*due to the very few number of reliable sources about the Biafran War, and especially about the Battle of Port Harcourt, I had to use Wikipedia, which I put in conjunction to a second source for reliability purposes.
References:
Chukwuma et al., "Naval Military Operations in Bonny during the Nigerian Civil War, 1967-1970", Advances in Historical Studies, 4, 2015, http://file.scirp.org/Html/5-2810117_57648.htm
Daniyan, "I woke up, there were soldiers", Biafran War Memories, May 29, 2017, https://biafranwarmemories.com/2017/05/29/i-woke-up-there-were-soldiers/
Duyile, "Nature and Impact of Involvement of the Navy in the Nigerian Civil War, 1967-1970", International Journal of Naval History, 13:2, 2016, http://www.ijnhonline.org/2016/11/17/nature-and-impact-of-involvement-of-the-navy-in-the-nigerian-civil-war-1967-1970/
Iwuagwu, "Food shortages, survival strategies and the Igbo of Southeastern Nigeria during the Nigeria Civil War", The Journal of International Social Research, 5:22, 2012, http://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/cilt5/cilt5sayi22_pdf/2_tarih/iwuagwu_obi.pdf
Umar, "Onitsha Battle" (Seminar Paper), 2013, https://www.academia.edu/7848409/Onitsha_Battle
Wikipedia, "Invasion of Port Harcourt", last update 19 August 2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Port_Harcourt
Pictures:
Eric Gaba (Wikimedia Commons Users - Sting): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biafra#/media/File:Biafra_independent_state_map-en.svg
https://www.liveonlineradio.net/fr/english/radio-biafra.htm
https://www.vesselfinder.com/ports/PORT-HARCOURT-NIGERIA-1112
This is a very interesting post and intriguing argument about the role of freshwater in influencing the Biafran war - perhaps particularly in terms of famine. Assuming war and associated violence inhibited/prevented subsistence agricultural production, is it that the region was essentially starved of food imports? Perhaps a clearer link or argument between freshwater availability and the Biafran War would be welcome. Are you aware of the current fight for an independent Ambazonia on the border region with Cameroon? You are correct that news from this region is limited.
RépondreSupprimerhttps://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n20/adewale-maja-pearce/prospects-for-ambazonia
Posted on behalf of Sarah Champagne:
RépondreSupprimerHi Richard, thank you for your comment. My point is that different water resources were politicized / strategically used during this war by both sides, and that this had different impacts: the seizure of the River Niger by the Nigerian army was a turning point in the war, and it impacted on tribal populations living by the river because they more than any others relied on it for their daily activities (ex: fishing, cleaning), and I assume the war prevented them from accessing the river in some areas. Apart from that I also made the point that the geographical location of the tribes living South of the river automatically made them become part of Biafra, and many were not happy about that but they had no choice.
In the case of Port Harcourt the role of water is quite different: since a lot of international food imports were delivered there, its seizure by the Nigerian army played a major role in the isolation, and famine, of Biafra.
Regarding agricultural production, overall the war limited access to food to ordinary citizens since men were conscripted and land surfaces were occupied. The negative effects were particularly felt in Biafra, mostly due to its isolation, but later also because the independentist administration refused to surrender (if they had done so, Nigerian troops would have stopped the blockade).
Thank you for the article about Ambazonia. I wasn't aware of this particular independist movement, but I do know that some self-called Biafrans are still claiming independence from Nigeria (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/biafra-independence-movement-nigeria-war-president-buhari-nnamdi-kanu-a8452366.html). I think this is very interesting, particularly with regards to how these movements originate in great part in the colonial legacy of African countries. I think the borders drawn by European colonialists in Africa were mostly responding to European interests, and they are now one of the major causes of conflict between African nations...