[Militant No. 31, November 1967, p. 1 and 3]
The Biafran army is being mopped up. Colonel Ojukwu’s promotion to General marks the defeat of his bold attempt to set up an autonomous state within the Federation of Nigeria. In the long run his intelligent, determined manoeuvres, such as the swift seizure of the Mid-West, could not stand up to the overwhelming weight of the Federal forces. Now he is believed to have executed Col. Banjo and other supporters in the Mid-West on grounds of treachery. The Yorubas of the West are again turning on the Ibos.
Nothing has been gained by the war. The war is just one chapter in the story of Nigeria’s disintegration. This arbitrary creation of the imperialist map-maker began to fall apart on independence in 1960. British “democracy” vanished into thin air. The military regimes of Gen. Ironsi and Gen. Gowon in turn proved powerless before the centrifugal forces of tribalism.
The outbreak of tribal war in Nigeria reveals the real heritage of imperialism: chronic backwardness. Britain drew West Africa into the net of the world market. But while raw materials necessary to the advanced countries caught in the mesh, society as a whole slipped through. Africans feel an urgent need to drag their society into the 20th Century. But a backward country has to buy its modernisation according to the price list of the advanced economies. And a sharp injection of modern industry does not automatically vitalise the patient. Inequalities are widened. social tensions exacerbated, contradictions pushed to violent extremes. Nigeria is still a very poor country. Of the 58m population 80% are engaged in agriculture which accounts for 60% of the national income. Per capita income is only £25 and varies regionally between £20 in the North to £40 in the West. Even Ghana’s per capita income is £75. In Britain it is about £350. Inequalities are great. A special commission set up by Gen. Gowon, for instance, found that a former minister had misappropriated £1 million. Corruption amongst officials was so rife that part of Gen. Gowon’s programme was for the repayment of filched funds. He promised a “corrective government”.
Nigeria’s trade is improving. In 1965 there was a £2m surplus compared with a £34m deficit in 1964. But this is not so rosy as it might at first. sight seem. Huge amounts of capital are required for basic needs such as roads, irrigation and agricultural improvements. Imports, mainly industrial goods from the West, cost Nigeria over £300m p.a. Only just scratching the surface of the problems, she owes over £100m in foreign loans. A high proportion of the exports used to pay these off (e.g. palm oil, groundnuts, cocoa) are highly vulnerable to fluctuations on the world market. In a bad year prices may slump up to 25%. And because small farmers are attracted to cash crops, there is actually a shortage of food in Nigeria which has sent prices soaring. Taking 1958 prices as 100, prices in 1962/3 were 122, in ’64 – 124, in ’65 – 135, and in ’66 – 145! These are the bare statistics of social crisis.
What happened to the “civilisation” and “democracy” Britain boasted it bequeathed to its former subject peoples? Progress has taken macabre forms. Primitive tribal feuds are being fought out with all the paraphernalia of modern warfare bought at inflated prices from the scrap heaps of the Imperialist powers. An enemy may be identified by tribal markings on his face – and then executed with the latest F. N. automatic rifle.
In June 1966, under the pressure of regional and tribal rivalry, the four states of the Federation were broken down into twelve. In July Gen. Ironsi was murdered in the night and his regime overthrown. Gen. Gowon, his successor, attempted a further share-out of power to prevent a complete break-up of the Federation. The attempt to delegate authority, however, produced an opposite effect. Decentralisation of government left it more than ever powerless to tackle the overall problems. Disruption of the fragmented administrations allowed the Federal Army, dominated by the Northern Hausas, to grasp even more this year Col. Ojukwu declared the Eastern Region to be an independent republic, still in the Federation but completely autonomous. – In July fighting broke out between the Biafran and Federal armies, and by 9th August Biafran forces had gained control of the Mid-West Region around Benin.
Deep rooted antagonisms between the Ibo tribe of the East and the Hausa tribe of the North lies beneath the hostilities. Under British rule it was the Ibo who were trained to staff the ranks of the colonial administration. Quick and intelligent by temperament, they gained key positions in education, local government and business life throughout Nigeria after independence. Their success and influence earned them the suspicion and jealously of the Hausa and to a less extent of the Fulani and Yoruba. Asked what was wrong with the Ibo. one Northerner tapped his head and said: “Too much up here”. After the army mutiny last year 30,000 Ibo living in the North were massacred. Two million more were forced to flee to their homeland in the East.
The perils of Northern hegemony hardened overwhelming Eastern support behind Col. Ojukwu’s declaration of independence. The Ibo felt that his existence was at stake and if necessary he would have to fight to preserve Iboland. The rich oil deposits in Biafra, two-thirds of Nigeria’s £100m p.a. output, were not the main issue though they became an important lever in the struggle. Provided the Federal Government recognised Biafra and paid for development projects originally financed under the Federal plan but paid for by Biafra, Col. Ojukwu was prepared to pay 30% of oil revenues to the Federation. Northern leaders, however, would not tolerate secession. They do not want the Biafrans, but. they want the rich resources of their territory.
Biafra is not a Katanga. There is no line-up of Western capitalist forces behind Biafra against the “African Socialism” of the Federation. Shell- BP tried to play a double game, offering £250.000 of the £7m both sides demanded in royalties to Biafra and the rest to Gen. Gowon. Col. Ojukwu felt constrained to take over their £130m refineries. The western powers tried to adopt a neutral position. Britain denied helping either side, but as it became clear had tacitly approved the private export of unknown quantities of arms. The arms profiteers laughed all the way to the bank.
But if Gen. Gowon could not get Hawker Hunters, Russian MiGs and Czech Delfines would do fine. With the cynical opportunism that is the trade mark of the Soviet bureaucracy’s foreign policy, it stepped in with military aid. It was under the guise of preventing the “Balkanisation” of Africa. With this Britain came out in more open support of Gowon. Despite Ojukwu’s slogan “Save Biafra for the Free World” the implication that Gowon and Co. are “agents of communist socialism” is hardly credible. Western and Russian support for Gen. Gowon is merely recognising that “balkanisation” would disrupt their markets and that the Federal Army will probably win in any case. But support for the existing regime. based on foreign interests, feudal landowners and native entrepreneurs, will provide no way out of Nigeria‘s blind alley.
While people are still fighting – and still losing – the age-old battle against famine, drought, pestilence and disease, social harmony, cultural advance are impossibilities. The representatives of the capitalist system in Africa are utterly incapable of stamping their mark on society. Incapable of accumulating capital on a significant scale, prostrate before the economic giants of the West. they have no hope of dragging the productive forces into the 20th Century. Incapable of solving the fundamental problem of national unification (achieved in Britain in the 17th Century), political stability is something they only dream of. In reality their only means of survival is “strong” government, military-police dictatorship. So-called “African Socialism” is merely a rationalisation of this Bonapartist development and of the fact that foreign trade and development projects have of necessity to be under the aegis of the state.
The sleeping giants of Africa must tear themselves free from the nexus of world capitalism if they are to rise to their full height. Under capitalist domination “Balkanisation” is taken further every week. Witness the break-up of the tenuous East African Common Market. Witness the fragmentation of West Africa. Consider the social cost of the war in Nigeria. The only road to future progress lies in the smashing of feudal and capitalist exploiters and in the socialisation of agriculture and industry under the control of the workers and poor peasants. Given a rising standard of living on a significant scale, tribal and regional antagonisms would be overcome. Above all, the productive forces of Africa would have to be integrated into a single unit. South Africa, with its great industrial resources, is a vital factor. Socialisation of the economy in South Africa by a rising of the workers and peasants would act as a fuse to a continental explosion.
Unfortunately, because of the failure of capitalism itself, the forces of the working-class in Africa are young and weak: The development of socialism in an African Federation would still depend on linking up with socialist production in the advanced countries. The black proletariat has a decisive stake in the struggle of its working-class allies in Europe and America. The advent of socialism here would make it possible for African society to go straight from tribalism to socialism. The present kaleidoscopic variety of social forms, from tribalism to crisis torn capitalism, exacerbates every problem, and solves none.
Schreibe einen Kommentar