Biafra struggle: Self-determination or hooliganism? (1)

The recent wave of clamour for Biafra calls for serious concern, especially because of the approach being adopted by the advocates. Before people will begin to read ethnic meaning to this submission, let me put it up-front that I have nothing, in principle, against any call for Biafra independence. I disagree totally, within the concept of the jurisprudence of international law, with our `leaders` who insist that Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable. It does not lie in the mouth of those that rule to tell us that; quest for self-determination is a right that is recognised in international law to which Nigeria subscribes. It is only the ruled that can say they are happy with the way the country is being governed and would love to be a part of it.

Having said that, let us attempt to put the issues in proper perspective. Is the recent call for self-determination by some people in the South-East justified? If at all it is justified, is the method of approach being adopted by this group of people appropriate or acceptable in law? These are the issues that this article would seek to address.

The seeds of the concept of self-determination were sown even in the earliest days of colonization. Its early implementation, according to U. O. Umezurike, is to be found in the plebiscites held in territories incorporated into the first French Republic. More immediately, the idea of self-determination did play a part in the creation of European nation states in the nineteenth century. In January 1918, President Wilson of the United States of America in his address to Congress stated, inter alia, that a free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty, the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

Wilson’s statement above is significant for two reasons. Firstly, the colonial claims he spoke about did not include the colonies of the victorious allies, it was mainly to score propaganda points against an enemy that contained within its empires many disparate minority peoples who wished for self-government. It should be noted that at this time the Austro-Hungarian Empire comprised many ethnic nationalities such as Germans, Serbians, Italians, and Czechs, etc – in fact, 15 different languages were spoken in the empire. Secondly, we can see from his address that the principle of self-determination is NOT ABSOLUTE but merely one factor of importance.

The conclusion of the First World War brought no right of self-determination to colonial peoples. There was no great consultation with the inhabitants of Europe and Middle East when their maps were redrawn. Rather than provide plebiscites with such people generally, the Treaty of Versailles only prescribed this process for those living in disputed areas. In other cases, minorities were to be protected through ‘minority treaties’ where states were required to enter into agreement to guard and protect rights.

What is obvious here so far is the inconsistency of world powers over the issue of self-determination. In the aftermath of the creation of the League of Nations, a case, which has to do with the sovereignty of the Aaland Islands, arose that has continued to be of contemporary significance. The Aaland Islands occupy a site in the Gulf of Bothnia in the Baltic Sea, between Finland and Sweden. Ninety percent of the population, which is only 27,000, lives on the main island while the remaining is spread across about 6,000 small islands. The people of these islands were overwhelmingly Swedish speaking. The islands have indeed had a chequered history, starting from the time they were ceded by Sweden to Russian, to British/French destruction of Russian fortification of the Islands, back to Swedish occupation and finally the Finnish ‘white’ government. The wish of the Islands was to be returned to Swedish sovereignty. Finland resisted such ‘cession’ and the dispute was referred to the Council of the League of Nations. The issue then was whether or not the wishes of the inhabitants of a territory overcame the territorial rights of the sovereign state of which it was a part (How very much like the Biafra question!).

The long and short of this matter was that the sovereignty of the Aaland Islands was recognized to belong to Finland. The Swedish government hoped in vain that an institution established to assist in the realisation of right in international relationships would have favoured a solution of the Aaland Islands question in conformity with the principle of self-determination. Let it be quickly added, however, that the victory of sovereignty over self-determination here was not unconditional. The League of Nations in its decision stated some guarantees such as preservation of the Swedish language in the schools, maintenance of the landed properties in the hands of the Islanders, etc., to be given for the protection of the Islanders.

The effect of this decision is that Council of the League of Nations elevated existing territorial sovereignty above the wishes of a people even where their physical location and ethnic and linguistic identity were undeniably distinct. SOVEREIGNTY ORIGINALLY ACQUIRED BY WHATEVER MEANS REMAINED SACROSANCT. Whether this is a bad or good judgment remains a subject of debate amongst legal scholars.

In contemporary times, issues that have international effect are guided by the United Nations Charter. Article 1(2) of the charter states that one of the purposes of the United Nations is to develop friendly relations among nations based on the principle of equal rights and self-determination of people. Article 73 of the charter, Resolution 1514 of the United Nations General Assembly of 1960 provided for right to self-determination in its promotion of granting of independence to colonial countries and people.

Oluwatoyin Ekundayo