Why Britain Not Supporting South-East Agitation – Ex-US Mayor

A former United States mayor, Mike Arnold, has argued that Britain’s position on agitation in Nigeria’s South-East is influenced by its historical role during Nigeria’s formation and the 1967–1970 civil war.

In a widely circulated commentary, Arnold said discussions about Biafra remain sensitive in international circles, particularly in the United Kingdom, due to its involvement during the conflict.

Nigeria was created in 1914 following the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates under British colonial rule. After independence in 1960, political tensions escalated, culminating in the declaration of the Republic of Biafra by the Eastern Region in 1967.

During the civil war, Britain supported the Nigerian federal government, maintaining a policy of preserving Nigeria’s territorial integrity. Historical records show that the UK had significant economic and strategic interests in Nigeria at the time, including in the oil sector through Shell-BP.

The war led to a humanitarian crisis, with famine and widespread suffering. Estimates indicate that between one and three million people died, many due to starvation.

Arnold, while stating that he does not advocate secession, said “grievances from the South-East should be understood within their historical context.”

He also called for “unity among Nigerians across ethnic lines as a pathway to addressing national challenges.”

In contemporary policy, the United Kingdom continues to recognise Nigeria as a sovereign state and does not support separatist movements.

British officials have consistently maintained that issues related to regional agitations are internal matters for Nigeria to resolve through constitutional means.

Arnold however said he had “called on them (south-east agitators) repeatedly to lay down that talk for now and band together across tribal lines to end the evil regime strangling the entire nation.

“Only when the stranglehold is broken can every group draw their own map in peace,” he said.

He stressed that “fundamentally, non-negotiably — that every group has the right to choose their own path. And what the British did to them is a vast, horrific, ongoing evil.”

He added, “apparently, that is the most dangerous thing I can say in Washington. More dangerous than naming the genocide and those behind it.”

He further criticised Britain’s historical role, describing its actions during the civil war as deeply contentious and still debated in historical and political discourse.

Historians note that British policy at the time was guided by strategic and economic considerations, particularly the protection of investments and support for a unified Nigerian state.

Records from the period show that Britain provided diplomatic and material support to the Nigerian federal government during the conflict, a position consistent with its broader foreign policy objectives.

The Nigerian government’s blockade of Biafra during the war contributed significantly to the humanitarian crisis, limiting the flow of food and medical supplies into the region.

Images of severe malnutrition among children during the conflict drew global attention and prompted international humanitarian responses.

Arnold maintained that the subject remains under-discussed, particularly in relation to Britain’s historical role, while reiterating his call for unity and dialogue as pathways to addressing Nigeria’s current challenges.