IN DEFENSE OF A DIALOGICAL RESOLUTION OF THE BIAFRAN CRISIS

Abstract

Nigeria and its eastern secessionist province of Biafra fought a brutal civil war that lasted from 1967 to 1970. In the issuing carnage that characterize the conflict, the international community operating under its hallowed principle of noninterference, stood idly in the face of one of the greatest killings and humanitarian crisis originating from Africa. The war was only brought to an end when Nigeria, supported militarily by Britain and Russia decisively defeated Biafra in the battlefield. The resurgence in recent years of the agitation for the restoration of the sovereign state of Biafra spearheaded by the Nnamdi Kanu led Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and the ongoing skirmishes between members of the group and Nigerian security agents have sparked concerns that Nigeria may be descending into another round of secessionist war. This in turn has attracted interventions from scholars especially on how the current crisis can be resolved peacefully. The interventions so far have focused on whether there is or not the right for Biafran secession in current international law and moral philosophy with Biafran protagonists claiming there is, and the antagonist arguing there is not. Using the dialogical method, this study argues that current theorizations on Biafra gravitate agitators towards violent confrontation and provokes repressive reactions from the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) and therefore not good for a peaceful resolution of the crisis. The study proposed the application of the dialogic method which treats the crisis as a conflict between two legitimate right claims that needs to be resolved dialogically as a better, more peaceful and rational way of solving the crisis.