Molotov

Surely, when a whole people is rejected by the majority of the state in which they live, they must have the life to life under a different kind of arrangement which does secure their existence. States are made to serve people; governments are established to protect the citizens of a state against external enemies and internal wrong-doers.

It is on those grounds that people surrender their right and power of self-defence to the Government of the state in which they live. But when the machinery of the state, and the powers of the Government, are turned against a whole group of the society on the grounds of racial, tribal, or religious prejudice, then the victims have the right to take back the powers they have surrendered, and to defend themselves.

For while people have a duty to defend the integrity of their state, and even to die in its defence, this duty stems from the fact that it is theirs, and that it is important to their wellbeing and to the future of their children. When the state ceases to stand for honor, the protection, and the wellbeing of all its citizens, then it is no longer the instrument of those it has rejected. In such a case the people have the right to create anotherinstrument for their protection - in other words, to create another state. This right cannot be abrogated by constitutions, nor by outsiders. The basis of statehood, and of unity can only be general acceptance by the participants. When more than twelve million people have become convinced that they are rejected, and that there is no longer any basis for unity between them and other groups of people, then that unity has ceased to exist. You cannot kill thousands of people, and keep killing more, in the name of unity. There is no unity between the dead and those who killed them; and there is no unity in slavery or domination.

Africa needs unity. We need unity over the whole continent, and in the meantime we need unity within the existing states of Africa. It is a tragedy when we experience a setback to our goal of unity. But the basis of our need for unity, and the reason for our desire for it, is the greater wellbeing, and the greater security, of the people of Africa. Unity by conquest is impossible. It is not practicable; and even if military might could force the acceptance of a particular authority, the purpose of unity would have been destroyed. For the purpose of unity, its justification, is the service of all the peoples who are united together. The general consent of all the people involved is the only basis on which unity in Africa can be maintained or extended.

The fact that the Federation of Nigeria was created in 1960 with the consent of all the people does not alter that fact. That Federation, and the basis of consent, has since been destroyed.

Nor is this the first time the world has seen a reduction in political unity. We have seen the creation of the Mali Federation, the creation of a Union between Egypt and Syria, and the establishment of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. And we have also seen the dissolution of all these attempts at unity, and the consequent recognition of the separate nations which were once involved. The world has also seen the creation of India and Pakistan out of what was once the Indian Empire. We have all recognized both of these nation states and done our best to help them deal with the millions of people made homeless by the conflict and division. None of these things meant that we have liked these examples of great disunity. They meant that we recognize that in all these cases the people are unwilling to remain in one political unit.

Tanzania recognizes Senegal, Mali, Egypt, Syria, Malawi, Zambia, Pakistan and Egypt. What right have we to refuse, in the name of unity, to recognize the fact of Biafra? For years the people of that state struggled to maintain unity with the other peoples in the Federation of Nigeria; even after the pogroms of 1966 they tried to work out a new form of unity which would guarantee their safety; they have demonstrated by ten months of bitter fighting that they have decided upon a new political organization and are willing to defend it.

The world has taken it upon itself to utter many ill-informed criticisms of the Jews of Europe for going to their deaths without any concerted struggle. But out of sympathy for the sufferings of this people, and in recognition of the world's failure to take action at the appropriate time, the United Nations established the State of Israel in territory which belonged to the Arabs for thousands of years. It was felt that only by the establishment of a Jewish homeland, and a Jewish national state, could Jews be expected to live in the world under conditions of human security.

Tanzania has recognized the State of Israel and will continue to do so because of its belief that every people must have some place in the world where they are not liable to be rejected by their fellow citizens. But the Biafrans have now suffered the same kind of rejection within their state that the Jews of Germany experienced. Fortunately they already had a homeland. They have retreated to it for their own protection, and for the same reason - after all other efforts had failed - they have declared it to be an independent state.

In the light of these circumstances, Tanzania feels obliged to recognize the setback to African unity which has occurred. We therefore recognize the State of Biafra as an independent sovereign entity, and as a member of the community of nations. Only by this act of recognition can we remain true to our conviction that the purpose of society, and of all political organization, is the service of Man." -Julius Nyerere, President of the United Republic of Tanzania

The Igbo and the other peoples of Biafra were a coherent unit long before the onslaught of the American-European transatlantic slave trade, and frequently rose up against their colonial Anglo-Saxon masters. This happened, for example, during the Ekumeku Movement that lasted 1883–1914, the Anglo-Aro War of 1901–1902, and the Women's War of 1929, among others. The imposed colonial borders lasted even after independence, in the neo-colonial state of Nigeria.

In 1967, the Republic of Biafra declared independence. This followed after an unlawful July 1966 military coup, the massive 1966 anti-Igbo pogroms which killed tens of thousands and displaced millions, the failure of the Nigerian regime to implement the Aburi Accord, and likewise further, subsequent failures to negotiate a federal system. The Federal Military Government responded by instituting an economic blockade which now reaps significant casualties among the civilian population of Biafra, with widespread famine ongoing, and by launching an unilateral invasion of Biafra. The Igbo, having struggled for centuries, found itself resisting once more.

In the well-established countries of the world, many ethnic secessionist movements are little more than reactionary scams propagated to divide the people and to prevent the formation of an united vanguard. This cannot be said of Biafra. It is, simply put, a legitimate war of national liberation. This committee finds itself, in this conclusion, guided by Chairman Mao's words:

History shows that wars are divided into two kinds, just and unjust. All wars that are progressive are just, and all wars that impede progress are unjust. We Communists oppose all unjust wars that impede progress, but we do not oppose progressive, just wars. Not only do we Communists not oppose just wars; we actively participate in them. As for unjust wars, World War I is an instance in which both sides fought for imperialist interests; therefore, the Communists of the whole world firmly opposed that war. The way to oppose a war of this kind is to do everything possible to prevent it before it breaks out and, once it breaks out, to oppose war with war, to oppose unjust war with just war, whenever possible.

LordMoose wrote:We whish all of your people well and hope that someday peace can be reached in all
of Africa we do whish that there would be a more peaceful means of reaching this goal
other than a civil war.

NOTE The Republic of South Africa DOES NOT recognizes the Republic of Biafra
at the current moment