Causes of the Biafra War: Ethnic Tensions & Oil Politics

Introduction

The Nigerian Civil War, also known as the Biafra War (1967–1970), remains one of the most devastating conflicts in post-colonial Africa. It was marked by massive casualties, starvation, and international controversy. At its core, the war was a secessionist attempt by the Eastern Region of Nigeria, dominated by the Igbo ethnic group, to establish the Republic of Biafra. The causes of the war are multifaceted, but two interrelated factors stand out: deep-rooted ethnic tensions and control over oil resources. This essay explores how these two factors intersected and intensified to spark a brutal and prolonged conflict.

Colonial Legacy and the Seeds of Division

The roots of the Biafra War can be traced back to British colonial policies in Nigeria. When the British amalgamated the Northern and Southern protectorates in 1914, they created an artificial entity that forced together over 250 ethnic groups with divergent cultures, religions, and political systems. The three dominant groups—the Hausa-Fulani in the North, the Yoruba in the West, and the Igbo in the East—were especially influential.

Colonial rule entrenched ethnic divisions by promoting indirect rule in the North and West, while encouraging more Western education and missionary activity in the East. As a result, the Igbo population became prominent in education, civil service, and the military. This imbalance generated resentment from other ethnic groups and laid the foundation for post-independence rivalries.

Ethnic Tensions and the Struggle for Political Power

After Nigeria gained independence in 1960, ethnic rivalry quickly replaced colonial domination as the main fault line in Nigerian politics. Each of the three major regions was dominated by one of the three major ethnic groups, and political parties were largely ethnically based.

• The Northern People’s Congress (NPC) was aligned with the Hausa-Fulani.

• The Action Group (AG) was Yoruba-led.

• The National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) was dominated by the Igbo.

Despite calls for national unity, political power was wielded along ethnic lines. The 1963 census, which determined federal representation and revenue allocation, was bitterly disputed, with accusations of manipulation and fraud. Political alliances shifted frequently, often based on expediency rather than ideology.

The situation deteriorated when in 1966, a coup led by mostly Igbo officers overthrew the civilian government. Though the plotters claimed national motives, most of the key political and military figures killed were from the North and West. The perception of an “Igbo coup” intensified ethnic hatred, particularly in the North.

The July 1966 Counter-Coup and Pogroms

The counter-coup in July 1966, led predominantly by northern officers, re-established northern dominance in the military and led to the rise of General Yakubu Gowon. However, it also triggered a wave of anti-Igbo pogroms in northern Nigeria. Tens of thousands of Igbos living in northern cities were killed, and many more fled to the Eastern Region. These massacres, which the federal government failed to control or punish adequately, shattered Igbo trust in Nigeria’s unity.

The Eastern Region, under the leadership of Lieutenant Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu, increasingly saw secession as the only option to guarantee the safety and future of its people. Attempts at reconciliation through the Aburi Accord in Ghana failed, primarily due to disagreements over the structure of Nigeria’s federal system and the implementation of agreed terms.

Declaration of Biafra

On May 30, 1967, Ojukwu declared the independence of the Republic of Biafra. This move was a culmination of years of ethnic marginalization, political instability, and violence. For many Igbos, Biafra represented a safe haven from ethnic persecution and a chance at self-determination.

However, the Nigerian government viewed the declaration as an existential threat to the nation’s unity. Gowon and his military leaders responded with a military campaign to crush the secession. What followed was a 30-month civil war, marked by conventional battles, guerrilla tactics, and one of the worst humanitarian crises in modern African history.

The Role of Oil Politics

While ethnic tensions played a foundational role in the Biafra conflict, oil politics was equally critical in shaping the federal government’s response and the international community’s stance.

Oil as a Strategic Asset

By the mid-1960s, Nigeria had become an emerging oil-producing country, with the vast majority of its reserves located in the Niger Delta, within the Eastern Region. British, Dutch, and American oil companies, such as Shell-BP, had invested heavily in the region. Oil had already become the major source of government revenue, and its importance was only expected to grow.

When Biafra seceded, it took with it control of about two-thirds of Nigeria’s oil production. This posed a major threat to the financial viability of the Nigerian state. The federal government could not afford to lose access to its main source of income. Securing the oil fields became a central military and strategic objective.

Oil and International Interests

Oil politics also influenced the international response to the war. While some countries like France, Ivory Coast, and Gabon supported Biafra (albeit mostly covertly), most of the major powers, including Britain and the Soviet Union, backed the Nigerian federal government.

Britain, Nigeria’s former colonial ruler, had significant oil interests in the region and viewed a united Nigeria as essential for regional stability and economic exploitation. British arms and logistical support were instrumental in bolstering federal forces. The Soviet Union, seeing an opportunity to gain influence in West Africa, also supplied weapons.

For these external powers, oil was a key incentive in maintaining Nigeria’s territorial integrity. The potential fragmentation of Nigeria threatened the commercial and geopolitical interests of foreign governments and multinational corporations.

Ethnic Minorities and Oil in the Niger Delta

An often-overlooked aspect of the conflict is the role of ethnic minorities in the Niger Delta, such as the Ijaw, Itsekiri, and Ogoni peoples. Although geographically within Biafra’s claimed territory, many of these minority groups were ambivalent or outright opposed to Igbo domination.

Historically, these groups had felt marginalized by the Igbos, much as the Igbos felt marginalized by the Hausa-Fulani and Yoruba. Many feared that an independent Biafra would replicate the same patterns of domination they experienced within Nigeria. The federal government exploited these divisions by recruiting soldiers from minority ethnic groups and using their territory as a base for military operations.

These internal fractures further complicated Biafra’s quest for legitimacy and control. Moreover, the Nigerian government’s military strategy of quickly retaking the oil-producing areas meant that Biafra was soon cut off from crucial revenue, hastening its economic and military decline.

Propaganda, Starvation, and the Media War

One of the most haunting legacies of the Biafra War was the mass starvation that occurred in the Biafran enclave. With supply lines cut and the federal government imposing a blockade, millions of civilians—mostly children—were at risk of starvation. Images of emaciated children with distended bellies flooded international media, sparking outrage and humanitarian campaigns, especially in Europe.

Biafra effectively used media and propaganda to garner international sympathy, portraying the conflict as a genocide against the Igbo people. Although this narrative was not universally accepted, it helped mobilize humanitarian aid and limited diplomatic support.

However, the federal government’s stance was unyielding. Gowon insisted on the non-negotiable unity of Nigeria, refusing any settlement that would grant Biafra autonomy or recognition. Ultimately, the combined effect of military defeats, internal dissent, and humanitarian catastrophe led Biafra to surrender in January 1970.

Post-War Nigeria and Lingering Divisions

After the war, Gowon declared a policy of “no victor, no vanquished,” and initiated a program of reconstruction and reconciliation. However, the scars of the conflict ran deep. Many Igbos who survived the war returned to find their properties taken, businesses destroyed, and opportunities limited.

The ethnic tensions that fueled the war have continued to influence Nigerian politics and society. While secession is no longer an active policy of the Igbo leadership, grievances over marginalization remain prevalent. The resurgence of pro-Biafra movements such as IPOB (Indigenous People of Biafra) in recent years underscores the fact that the underlying issues were never fully resolved.

Oil, too, remains a source of conflict and contention. The Niger Delta has seen repeated insurgencies over the distribution of oil wealth and environmental degradation caused by extraction. Although oil brought immense revenue to the Nigerian state, it also deepened corruption, inequality, and instability.

Conclusion

The Biafra War was not merely a tragic chapter in Nigerian history—it was the product of structural flaws rooted in colonialism, aggravated by ethnic mistrust and the politics of resource control. Ethnic divisions undermined national cohesion and created a climate of suspicion and violence. The discovery and commercialization of oil added a new layer of complexity, turning an internal political crisis into a strategic imperative for both the Nigerian state and foreign powers.

While the guns fell silent in 1970, the war’s legacy continues to shape Nigeria’s national consciousness. The twin forces of ethnic competition and oil politics remain potent, making it essential for contemporary Nigerian leaders to address historical grievances and foster a more equitable, inclusive, and transparent political system.

The lessons of the Biafra War are as relevant today as they were over five decades ago. Without confronting the deep-seated issues of ethnic inequality and the mismanagement of natural resources, Nigeria risks repeating the mistakes of its past.