Through the Imperial Lens the Role of Portugal in the Nigeria- Biafra War

Through the Imperial Lens The Role of Portugal in the Nigeria- Biafra War

Arua Oko Omaka

Although Portugal played a prominent but controversial role in the Nigeria- Biafra War, its interest remains largely neglected in the historiography of the war. Portugal and some of its colonies in Africa—Guinea- Bissau and São Tomé— provided the principal channels through which Biafra imported arms and supplies. Te Nigerian government and its British ally believed that Portugal not only provided access routes to Biafra but also facilitated the recruitment of mercenaries and the provision of military equipment for Biafra. Tis article aims to fll the gap in the historiography of the Nigeria- Biafra War by arguing that Portugal’s imperial interests in Africa informed its roles in the war. Portugal’s assistance to Biafra helped sustain the confict, thereby diverting the attention of the world community away from its unpopular policies in Africa. Tis research is based on archival documents in the UK, Canada, and the United States that have not been adequately explored in studies of the war.

Introduction

Te Eastern Region seceded from the Nigerian federation in May 1967 afer the political crises that led to the massacre of members of the Eastern Region

Afer teaching at the University of Toronto, Arua Oko Omaka joined the Department of History and Strategic Studies at Federal University, Ndufu Alike Ikwo, Nigeria. His contact address is aruaojum@yahoo .com.

186 The Role of Portugal in the Nigeria- Biafra War 187 living in northern and western Nigeria.1 Leaders of the Eastern Region considered secession to be the only way to guarantee the safety of life and property of their people.2 Te Nigerian government interpreted the secession of Eastern Nigeria (Biafra) as a rebellion and decided to preserve the unity of Nigeria by taking military actions against Biafra.3 Te government’s attempt to crush the Biafran “rebellion” led to the outbreak of a war that lasted from July 1967 to January 1970. Te Nigeria-Biafra War attracted the interest and attention of European and Asian powers for a variety of reasons. Te British were interested in a united Nigeria, for example, because of their huge economic investment in the oil- rich Niger Delta region, while the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) got involved in the confict in order to open a major wedge into the capitalist region of West Africa that had previously been closed to it. France provided both arms and humanitarian aid for Biafra on the grounds that Biafra had the right to self- determination.4 Although France emphasized humanitarian concerns as its reason for supporting Biafra, it also hoped that the independence of Biafra would help weaken British infuence in the West African subregion. China, in contrast, provided Biafrans with arms because they saw them as freedom fghters struggling against imperialism and Russia’s growing infuence in Nigeria.5 Te Scandinavian countries collectively provided humanitarian aid for Biafra but discretely avoided any form of political involvement. Te USSR succeeded in penetrating the Nigerian government by quickly supplying arms and technical expertise to Nigeria. Te efect of the Russian arms intervention in Nigeria was to seal the fate of Biafra, as the western powers believed that they could not aford to allow Russia to come between them and the Nigerian government, regardless of public opinion and the sympathy for Biafra in Britain and America. Britain, which was initially reluctant to supply arms to the Nigerian government, later did so when it became obvious that it was losing its traditional prestige and infuence in Nigeria because of the Soviet arms intervention there. Britain and the United States could have saved Biafra if they wanted, but humanitarian considerations were secondary to Cold War calculations in western diplomacy regarding Africa. Te intersection of the Brit- ish and Soviet interests in the confict led to a massive supply of arms to the Nigerian government. Interestingly, Portugal had no clear interest in the confict. In their seminal article “Te Nigeria- Biafra War: Postcolonial Confict and the Question of 188 Journal of Global South Studies (Spring 2019)

Genocide,” Lasse Heerten and A. Dirk Moses argue that the Estado Novo dictatorship in Portugal and the South African and Rhodesian apartheid regimes secretly supported Biafra on morally ambiguous grounds, presumably to weaken Nigeria.6 Nigerian political scientist Josiah Elaigwu has speculated that Portu- gal might have supported Biafra because a fragmented Nigeria would have provided a distraction from the mounting pressure it was experiencing to end its colonial regime in Africa.7 Portugal certainly played a strategic role by providing the main link between Biafra and the outside world. John Stremlau, a prominent scholar of the Nigeria-Biafra War, noted that church groups and Biafrans dealt with the Portuguese on a commercial basis.8 Given that there had been no previous relationship between Portugal and the seceding part of Nigeria, it was difcult to explain Portugal’s strange friendship with Biafra and to discern what interest was served by its support for Biafra. Biafrans used Portugal and some of its colonies in Africa— Guinea- Bissau and São Tomé— as organizing centers and supply routes for arms and equipment. Portugal reached an understanding with the Biafran government that enabled it to use Lisbon and Portugal’s colonies in Africa as transit routes. Te Nigerian government, which wanted a quick military victory and to preserve the unity of the country, naturally interpreted Portugal’s agreement with Biafra as an unfriendly act that helped prolong the confict.9 Without Portuguese assistance, Biafra would have capitulated earlier than it did. Te Nigerian government considered reporting Portugal to the United Nations but chose not to do so for political reasons. Raising Portugal’s complicity with Biafra at the United Nations would have further internationalized the confict, thwarting the chances of achieving the quick military victory the Nigerian government desperately wanted. Tis article advances the discourses and interpretations of the international politics of the Nigeria-Biafra War by arguing that Portuguese imperial policy in Africa largely infuenced its role in the Nigeria-Biafra War. Te war broke out at a time when the entire African continent was undergoing decolonization and Portugal was under pressure to liberalize its unpopular policies in Africa and negotiate a peaceful handover to African leaders. By supporting Biafra, Portu- gal diverted the attention of African leaders away from campaigning against its unpopular policies in Africa. Portugal saw the war as an opportunity to use Afri- cans’ own argument about the primacy of the right to self-determination against them. Portuguese imperial policy in Africa thus provides a window to understanding the international dimension of the Nigeria-Biafra War. Tis The Role of Portugal in the Nigeria- Biafra War 189 article focuses mainly on the British and Nigerian approaches to Portugal’s standpoint. Te reason that this research relies chiefy on documents from British, Canadian, and US archives is that Portugal’s diplomatic archives have not yet declassifed their fles on the Nigeria- Biafra War.

A Reassessment of Portuguese Colonial Policy in Africa

Portugal has a long history in Africa. It was the frst colonial power in Africa and the last to divest its territories on the continent. Social and political developments in Africa and historical conditions in the global community forced colonial powers to hand over authority to indigenous African leaders. Soon afer World War II, the agitation for political independence among African and Asian countries increased. By the late 1960s, when powerful European countries such as Great Britain, France, and Belgium had completed the decolonization of their former colonies, Portugal, a relatively weak and poor state in industrialized Europe, was still hesitant about the future of its African colonies, which it seman- tically camoufaged as “overseas provinces.”10 Te delay in the decolonization process of Portuguese colonies can be attributed to a number of factors. Portugal was beclouded by a Christian paternalism toward Africa and the assumption that its colonial policy was best for its territories.11 Portugal believed that its Roman Catholic tradition and its long contact with diferent cultures and races of the world specially equipped it to maintain good relations with people of all backgrounds. Its leaders ofen argued that they were building a multiracial society in Africa.12 Armindo Monteiro, a Portuguese minister of the colonies in the 1930s and the Portuguese ambassador to Britain in the 1940s, asserted that destiny had entrusted Portugal with the responsibility of raising Africans and their territories to the level the Por- tuguese had attained and that Portugal had successfully created a harmonious society in Brazil without racial hatred.13 Portuguese scholars appeared to have shared this same perspective. For instance, Gilberto Freyre, a famous Brazilian historian and cultural interpreter, formulated the theory of Lusotropicalism, whereby he argued that people of Portuguese background were preordained to lead the world toward racial harmony and to build a global empire that would be made up of people of various colors, religions, and languages.14 Te Portuguese believed that successful colonization must be based on union with the indigenous people; this is why they did not support the principle of 190 Journal of Global South Studies (Spring 2019) racial prejudice. Portugal’s Organic Charter of the Colonies and Overseas Administrative Reform of 1933 empowered white settlers in Africa to act as protectors of the “Natives.”15 As protectors, they had the duty of promoting the preservation and development of the indigenous people. Tis idea of acting as the “lord defender” for the “weak indigenous Africans” propelled the mass migration of Portuguese to Africa. By 1938, Mozambique had 20,000 settlers from Portugal while Angola had no less than 57,000— the highest population of Europeans in an African country.16 Portugal’s emphasis on building a harmonious multiracial society and having a large number of its citizens in its Afri- can territories led some Portuguese to believe that they had colonization in their blood. A critical analysis, however, shows that there was a huge gap between Portugal’s theory of colonial administration and the reality in the colonies. Por- tugal’s aspiration to foster a Pan- Lusitanian community where Europeans and Africans associated freely may have rested heavily on consociation with Afri- can women, since Portuguese women did not settle in Africa in signifcant num- bers until the 1940s. Portuguese colonial policy remained static, racist, and authoritarian in terms of human relations and development.17 Although Portugal’s colonial policy in Africa elevated the social status of Portuguese migrants to Africa, it impoverished Africans. Many Portuguese migrants who settled in Africa and engaged in low- skilled economic activities such as shop keeping, construction, vehicle maintenance, and truck driving enjoyed higher economic status than their African counterparts with the same level of education and skills.18 A laborer whose monthly income in Lisbon was 4,000 escudos could earn as much as 8,000 escudos for doing exactly the same job in Angola or Mozambique. However, Africans earned much less than that.19 In the job pyramid, Portuguese nationals occupied the top rung while Africans flled the bottom. Even when Portuguese were employed to do the same job as Africans, the Portuguese dominated Africans. An African’s ceiling in the job pyramid apparently started at the Portuguese foor. Te discriminations and abuses meted out to Africans in Portuguese colonies obviously belied Portugal’s image of itself as a nation without racial prejudice. Portugal’s sense of entitlement in its colonies also impeded the decolonization process in Africa. In 1939, the president of Portugal declared that because Portugal had paid a huge price in terms of labor, sufering, and human life to develop and “civilize” the natives, everything that existed in the colonies belonged to it.20 Portugal was relatively poor and industrially backward The Role of Portugal in the Nigeria- Biafra War 191 compared to Western European countries and its economic prosperity depended to a large extent on its African colonies, which were economically proftable. Portuguese sold most of its export products, especially wine, cot- ton, and agricultural tools, in its African colonies. Exports from Portuguese colonies in Africa included cofee, sisal, tea, diamonds, and copra, all of which earned a huge foreign exchange for Portugal. Te Portuguese economy would have been adversely afected without this income. Commenting on Portugal’s retention of colonies in Africa, D. M. Frieden- berg noted that the entire social and economic structure of the country was tied to that of Angola and Mozambique with the result that the government feared revolution in the metropole if African colonies were granted independence.21 For Portugal, the overseas territories were an indivisible part of the mother country. Te poverty of the metropole was the major force that drove the mass migration of Portuguese to Africa, not because the Portuguese sought to create a Pan-Lusitanian community where Europeans and Africans would freely coex- ist without racial prejudice, as the much- touted theory suggests. Given that Portugal supported itself with revenue from its colonies in Africa, it was deter- mined not to surrender to criticisms and pressures from Africa and the United Nations. Retaining colonies in Africa provided an outlet for the Portuguese to deal with economic challenges at home. Tis economic background also explains why Portugal’s colonial policy was exploitative and repressive. In addition to the economic interpretation, there was also a near- total indif- ference of diferent sectors of Portugal’s society to colonial afairs. Te Portu- guese, especially the political class, did not care much about the welfare of its African colonies despite the waves of decolonization that were sweeping through the whole world. Tis partly explains why African nationalists’ agitation for independence did not gain wide acceptance among Portuguese politicians.22 Portugal’s unresponsiveness to events in the colonies can also be attributed to the political crisis that rocked the country in the early part of the twentieth century. From 1910 to 1926, Portugal had nine presidents. Tis period was marked by anarchy, corruption, rioting, and assassination. When António Salazar came into power afer a coup on May 28, 1926, he issued restrictive laws and police measures. Because his administration aggressively censored the press and because liberal democracy was non-existent, the press could not provide ade- quate coverage of events in the colonial territories. Te crisis in the metropole created room for a small, dominant interest group in Portugal to manipulate the 192 Journal of Global South Studies (Spring 2019) colonial system.23 Because the authoritarian regime in Portugal had destroyed democracy in the metropole, it would have been paradoxical to expect freedom in the African colonies, which were considered backward. Granting civil rights to Africans would have amounted to ofering a gif that the metropole did not itself enjoy. Portuguese leaders justifed their continued paternalism by arguing that they had not been surpassed by any colonial power in winning the goodwill and afection of Africans. Tis sense of pride in past deeds ofers another explanation for the behavior of Portuguese colonialists in Africa. Tey also emphasized that early independence had led to communism in Ghana and Guinea, to violent crisis in Congo, and to racism on the African continent.24 However, despite Portugal’s claim that it had won the goodwill and afection of indigenous Africans, it could not forestall the revolt that nearly engulfed Angola in 1961. From 1961 to 1974, Portugal was involved in a full- scale colonial war that is known in Africa as wars of liberation led by the emerging nation- alist movements in its African colonies. It took the Carnation Revolution of April 25, 1974, in Lisbon to overthrow the unpopular corporatist authoritarian regime of the Estado Novo and bring the colonial confict to a close. It is obvious that political developments in Portugal from 1910 to the 1960s largely infuenced Portugal’s policies in its African colonies. Agitation to decolonize Portuguese African territories came from two major directions: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and African leaders. Until the early 1950s, the United States and Britain had supported Portu- gal on issues pertinent to its African colonies, but this relationship came to an end when it was obvious that Portugal was unwilling to hand over power to African leaders. Some European powers and Asian countries that recognized decolonization movements as a reality strongly condemned Portugal’s static policies in Africa.25 NATO, for instance, mounted pressure on Portugal to liberalize its colonial policies and grant independence to African states under its rule. However, António Salazar’s authoritarian regime wanted to exercise indefnite authority over his colonial territories in Africa and decided to over- look the historical realities of the moment. As an impoverished country, Portugal saw its colonies as a source of wealth and pride. Instead of yielding to the pressure from NATO and African leaders, Portugal threatened to leave the United Nations in protest and interpreted the pressure from NATO to decolonize its possessions in Africa as an attempt to “disintegrate the Portuguese empire.”26 The Role of Portugal in the Nigeria- Biafra War 193

In Africa, anticolonial sentiment was united against Portugal’s presence in Africa and its repression of its colonies. In 1963, a group of African leaders presented their demands for political independence in the United Nations Security Council. Te African leaders claimed that the conditions in Portugal’s African colonies were seriously eroding peace and security on the continent and they asked the United Nations to declare the situation a threat to international peace and security.27 Tey also called on the UN to impose sanctions on Portugal and expel it from the international body. Te UN Security Council endorsed the demands that Portugal grant independence to its colonies in Africa and asked all member states to stop supplying arms for the suppres- sion of liberation movements in Portuguese colonies.28 However, the Security Council considered the imposition of sanctions and the expulsion of Portugal from the United Nations to be extreme measures that could afect the continued existence of the world body. Against this backdrop and the fact some powerful Security Council members such as the United States, Britain, and France had abstained from voting on the resolution, the Security Council cautiously interpreted Portuguese relations with its colonies as a mere dispute.29 It was clear that the economic and strategic interests of the “great powers” in Portuguese colonies infuenced their decision to abstain from voting on the Security Council’s resolution on Portuguese Africa. Te United States and Brit- ain, for example, had large investments in Angola and Mozambique. In addition, the United States considered Portugal to be anti-communist and thus friendly.30 Again, the United States had a military pact with Portugal related to its autonomous region in the Azores that had expired in 1961 and was due to be renewed. Te United States also had interests in the whole of Southern Africa and wanted to assign a strategic role to Portugal as a counter to a per- ceived threat in the Indian Ocean from the Soviet navy following the withdrawal of Britain. Based on these interests, the United States only gave tepid support to self- determination for the people in Portuguese Africa.31 Given that the United States considered Portugal to be an important NATO ally, it never went beyond verbal condemnation of Portugal. In concert with its allies, the United States successfully blocked every UN attempt to sanction Por- tugal, asserting that any resolution against Portuguese policy that went beyond verbal rebukes would not achieve any meaningful purpose.32 Portugal clearly benefted from the collaborative neutrality of its NATO allies.33 Te US posture on the Portuguese- African issue is congruent with the assertion that European 194 Journal of Global South Studies (Spring 2019) interests at the global level superseded those of Africa, regardless of the size of the European country. Another reason the United States took this position is that it considered Africa to be Europe’s special responsibility, just as Latin Amer- ica was considered a US sphere of infuence. Te fact that the United States did not play an active role in Portugal’s decolonization of Africa should not be taken as a sign of indiference to African afairs. Its discreet stance can be interpreted as a policy of remaining disentangled from the African struggle for decolonization. Regardless of the roles and interests of the great powers in the anticolonial struggle, the UN Security Council declared that Portugal’s rule in Africa was doomed by history and that its claim that its African territories were its “overseas provinces” was anachronistic.34 African and Asian delegates to the United Nations insisted that they were colonies and should be freed from colonial rule. By describing them as “provinces,” Portugal wanted to avoid being held accountable to the international community on matters pertaining to its colonial policies in Africa. Although Portugal described the Security Council’s resolution as “revolting,” it could not escape the force of world opinion, which had risen against the possession of colonies as an unacceptable condi- tion in the modern world. Portugal’s centuries of suzerainty in Africa did little to bring development to its colonies in Africa, which sufered some of the worst forms of economic deprivation.35 Portuguese settlers in Africa got richer while indigenous Africans remained poor. It was extremely difcult for African children in Portuguese colonies to acquire even a rudimentary education. Less than 3 percent of Afri- cans in Portuguese colonies were literate in 1961.36 Portugal also failed to provide health care services. Te rudimentary health care facilities that existed were found only in cities and on mission stations where a large number of Portuguese immigrants resided. Portugal provided a classic example of imperialism as a tool to exploit overseas empires in order to make up for shortcomings in the metropole. Although economic development was not on the agenda of the colonial powers in Africa, some colonial powers such as Britain and France tried to provide basic education and rudimentary medical care in some parts of their colonies. France, for example, regarded equipping its colonies to look like modern states as “infrastructure.”37 Britain also knew it would hand over power to Africans and provided requisite education and training to its sub- jects. Although Portugal continued to claim that it was less motivated by racial The Role of Portugal in the Nigeria- Biafra War 195 antagonism than other colonial powers, in Angola and Mozambique, blacks and whites lived almost completely separate from one another, a practice that was similar to the apartheid policy in neighboring South Africa.38 Tis is not to suggest that other colonial powers were less oppressive and racist in their policies. Britain, for instance, created detention camps that har- bored about one million Kikuyu Kenyans during the Mau Mau Uprising, a tortuous situation that historian Caroline Elkins has described as Britain’s gulag.39 Germany killed the Herero and the Nama of Namibia by the thousands in 1904 for resisting the Germans’ attempt to take over their land. Te Germans also took many Namibians to a concentration camp, where they died in 1904 and 1905. Teir remains were taken to Germany for racial experiments intended to show European superiority over Africans.40 Namibians relived the horror and tragedy of colonialism in October 2011, when the German government returned twenty skulls that Germans had taken from Namibia for experiments. Portugal’s colonial policy did not became a matter of concern and international debate until it became obvious that it was neither contemplating hand- ing over power to Africans nor ready to compromise on its brutal policies in Africa. Portugal remained unconcerned about the political right of the citizens in its colonies to self- government. Instead of negotiating for self- government with African leaders, the Portuguese government resorted to supporting activities that destabilized the peace and security of some African countries as a way of diverting global attention from its oppressive rule in Africa. President Mobutu Sese Seko of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and General Yakubu Gowon of Nigeria, for example, accused the Portuguese government of masterminding mercenary attacks in their countries.41 Mobutu stated that Portugal was using its colony of Angola to supply and reinforce the mercenaries who attacked his country. General Gowon alleged that Portugal was using its ofshore island of São Tomé for the purpose of recruiting mercenaries to support the Biafran “rebellion.” Although Portugal denied these allegations, it was evident that the last mercenary who entered Katanga had come in through Angola.42 Mobutu alleged that the attacks on Congo of mercenaries who had traveled through Angola were part of Belgium’s Union Minière Trust’s plan to destabilize Congo following the Congolese government’s nationalization of its property. John de St. Jorre, one of the journalists who reported on the Nigeria-Biafra and Con- golese wars, observed that Portugal played an ambiguous role by providing help for Moïse Tshombe in the secessionist Province of Katanga in 1960 and later by 196 Journal of Global South Studies (Spring 2019) assisting rebellious Congo mercenaries.43 Te Congolese government and other observers believed that Portugal used the dispute between Congo and Union Minière Trust to weaken large black African countries that criticized its colonial rule in Africa.44 Although Portugal used the Biafra war to divert attention away from its colonial wars in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau, it should also be pointed out that Portugal’s political situation up to the second half of the twentieth century also played a critical role in the violent and traumatic decolonization of its African colonies. In addition to the forty- eight years of dictatorship in Portugal, there was a high degree of interdependence between developments in the metropole and those in the colonies. Norrie Macqueen has pointed out that the contradictions within the Portuguese government between the Spino- lists, whose programs for independence were both unrealistic and unacceptable to the African independence fghters, and the more radical members of the armed forces who supported immediate independence played a role in delaying the decolonization of Portuguese colonies in Africa.45 Te Portuguese government was faced with the challenge of reconciling settler interests in Angola and Mozambique with the demands of African nationalists. Tese and other factors complicated diplomatic negotiations, thereby delaying the decolonization process. Portuguese policies in Africa and the decolonization movements in the 1960s provide a window to understanding Portugal’s strange friendship with Biafra.

Portuguese Involvement in the Nigeria- Biafra War

When the Nigeria- Biafra War broke out in July 1967, Portugal ofered its territory as a transit state for the blockaded Biafra. It also permitted Biafrans to set up European headquarters in Lisbon and to establish radio communication facilities there. Tus, Portugal became a principal channel through which arms and supplies reached Biafra and a telecommunications link that kept Biafra in tenuous touch with the outside world for the duration of the confict. Portugal’s ofer of its territory as a transit state to the secessionist Republic of Biafra raised a big concern among Nigerian government ofcials for two reasons: the Nige- rian government still considered Biafra to be an integral part of Nigeria and insisted on resolving the confict within the framework of “One Nigeria.” Second, the Nigerian government had blockaded Biafra, believing that it The Role of Portugal in the Nigeria- Biafra War 197 would soon weaken and be forced to surrender. Against this background, the Nigerian government interpreted Portugal’s role in the confict as an unfriendly act and accused the Portuguese government of providing moral and fnancial support for Biafra.46 Portugal’s alleged complicity in the confict was also a source of worry to the British government, which supported the principle of a united Nigeria. Aside from colonial ties, Britain had a huge economic investment in Nigeria and wanted a stable political climate that would enable British businesses to four- ish. Britain considered Portuguese assistance to Biafra to be a direct attack on British interests because it believed that the Biafran government was using military resources from Portugal to attack British oil installations in Biafran territory.47 While the positions and interests of many European and North American countries on the war were clear, those of Portugal were not. Portugal had no direct interest in or any form of relationship with the Eastern Region (later Biafra) until the war broke out. As the war dragged on, some European countries openly supported Nige- ria’s anti-secession war while others remained scrupulously neutral. Britain, for instance, gave full military and diplomatic support to Nigeria, while the United States, Finland, Norway, Netherland, Sweden, and Iceland maintained a position of formal neutrality.48 Te Nigerian government’s blockade of Biafra resulted in starvation and mass death that aroused the conscience of the global community. However, many countries in Europe and North America maintained diplomatic relations with the Nigerian government or at least recognized the Federal Military Government of Nigeria as the only legal government of Nige- ria.49 Although some European countries provided substantial humanitarian aid to Biafra, none of them played the strategic role that Portugal did. Te Nigerian government did not publicly mention Portugal’s role in the confict until October 1967, when Nigerian troops captured a small freighter headed for Biafra that was loaded with arms from Portugal.50 Portugal denied providing either military or fnancial support to Biafra. However, on Janu- ary 27, 1968, the Baltimore Sun reported a secret movement of arms, ammuni- tion and manpower supplies from Portugal to Biafra. Some of the crew on the plane that was involved in the clandestine operation between Lisbon and Port Harcourt (a city in Biafra) revealed that Biafrans had moved arms and foreign journalists into Biafra.51 Te journalists were fown into Biafra under the aus- pices of Hollywood, a public relations frm that managed Biafra’s publicity 198 Journal of Global South Studies (Spring 2019) before Markpress took over. Robert Goldstein, who was in charge of Holly- wood, wanted to present the Biafran side of the story to the western world in order to elicit public sympathy and humanitarian aid and Biafrans used the opportunity to import arms into Biafra by air.52 Although the Nigerian government subsequently accused the Portuguese government of assisting Biafra with arms shipments, Portugal denied the allegation.53 Portugal contested the Nigerian government’s allegation by arguing that it had no direct interest in the confict and was indiferent to the outcome of the war.54 However, Portugal’s attitude toward the confict suggested otherwise. George Shepherd, an international commentator, for instance, noted that Portugal was supplying arms to Biafra in order to build an alliance.55 Politically, the Portuguese wanted Nigeria to be fragmented and possibly to collapse. Te Nigerian government had also broken diplomatic relations with Portugal because of its oppressive policies in Africa. In addition, Nigeria had made large fnancial contributions to the Organization of African Unity (now the African Union), which provided funds and political support for anticolonial movements in Portugal’s African colonies.56 Portuguese support for Biafra, therefore, was a way of weakening Nigeria and its support for anticolonial campaigns in Portu- guese colonies. By supporting Biafra, Portugal believed it had turned Africans’ own argument about the primacy of the right to self- determination against them. Portugal also encouraged disorder in African states to buttress its thesis that independence was being given to African countries too soon.57 Tere is no doubt that crisis in Nigeria diverted the attention of Nigeria and other African countries away from their united stand against Portugal’s repressive policies in Africa. Many African leaders became more concerned about the Nigerian crisis when the Nigerian government and Britain argued that the successful secession of Biafra would lead to the disintegration of other African countries along ethnic lines. Psychologically, Biafra’s war of independence ofered a good opportunity for Portugal to make a new friend on a continent where it had lost friends due to its despotic rule. Portugal also believed that supporting Biafra would demon- strate its continuing ability to infuence African afairs. Indeed, Biafra welcomed Portuguese assistance even though Portugal had become unpopular in Africa. Biafra and Portugal reached an understanding that made it possible for the Biaf- ran government to make use of metropolitan Portugal, Guinea-Bissau, and São Tomé for the transportation of supplies and maintain ofces in Lisbon. For The Role of Portugal in the Nigeria- Biafra War 199 example, Henry Warton, a German-born American who few arms for Biafra and relief supplies for humanitarian organizations, operated out of Lisbon.58 Tis assistance accorded Portugal the status of a major ally of Biafra in the confict. Religiously, Catholic Portugal had received strong pressure from the Vatican to provide relief for the starving masses in Biafra.59 Although the Nigerian leader General Yakubu Gowon maintained that the confict was not a religious war, some observers interpreted the war as a religious struggle between the Chris- tian south and the Muslim north.60 Te religious coloration of the confict partly explains why many religious bodies in Europe ignored diplomatic considerations in their historic provision humanitarian aid to Biafra between 1968 and 1970. Portugal’s Catholicism and the concept that aid to Biafra was humanitarian, which had spread across Europe since the war gained global media attention, partly infuenced its role in the confict. Te humanitarian efort of church groups across Europe awakened the conscience of many Portuguese who believed that Biafrans were fghting for survival against starvation and a well- armed enemy.61 Another interesting facet of the confict was Portugal’s defense of its provision of transit facilities for Biafra. Portugal argued that it did this based on the United Nations convention of providing access to landlocked countries.62 Te United Nations Convention on Transit Trade of Land-Locked States of 1965 stipulates that states without a seacoast should be given free transit to the coast for the purpose of advancing international trade and economic development.63 However, the practice of a country with a seacoast providing transit facility to a landlocked was based on a common understanding and reciprocity. And since this convention only applied to member states that were recognized by the United Nations, its application to Biafra raised a legal concern. Te UN never ofcially recognized Biafra as a sovereign state. In addition, Biafra was not landlocked. Te territorial boundary of the geographical area known as Biafra coincided exactly with the boundary of the former Eastern Region, which had access to the sea in Calabar and Port Harcourt. Biafra did not become blockaded until Nigerian troops occupied Calabar, Ogoja, and Port Harcourt in April and May of 1968. Accordingly, Portugal’s argument that Biafra had the privilege of “freedom of transit” as a landlocked state was erroneous and did not meet the conditions of the United Nations Con- vention on Transit Trade of Land-Locked States. A British ambassador to 200 Journal of Global South Studies (Spring 2019)

Portugal argued that Portugal was overstretching the application of the “doctrine of access to landlocked states.”64 Portugal’s reference to the convention on landlocked states as a reason for providing transit facility for the Biafran government was only a camoufage. If that explanation were to be taken at face value, it would have meant that Portugal recognized Biafra as a sovereign state. Te Nigerian government’s worry over Portugal’s involvement in the war became more serious when Nigerian troops captured a former Portuguese air force pilot, Gil Pinto de Sousa, on November 2, 1969, afer he crash landed near Kef in Northern Nigeria.65 De Sousa, a former Portuguese air force pilot who had been hired by the Biafran government, was fying a North American Aviation T-6 Texan aircraf from Abidjan to the Biafran airport at Uli when he lost his way due to bad weather and ran out of fuel.66 De Sousa had become involved in the fight operation for Biafra through his contact with a US air force captain who was working for Phoenix Airline, a charter company based in Guinea- Bissau. Te Nigerian government’s press release on the captured Portuguese mercenary pilot revealed that Portugal was providing facilities for storing arms and training mercenary pilots near Tiers in Portugal.67 Te Biafran government was also using a Portuguese air force base in Guinea-Bissau to assemble aircraf shipped from a factory at Seama, Portugal. Portuguese mercenary pilots were moving aircraf meant for Biafra from the Guinea-Bissau factory. Te Nigerian government also claimed that four of the T-6 aircraf Biafran mechanics had assembled under the supervision of a Portuguese mechanic and Portuguese air force personnel had been shipped from the Seama factory in Portugal.68 Accord- ing to De Sousa, the Biafran government was paying the Portuguese mercenaries a monthly salary of £200 with a bonus of £318 for every fight into Biafra.69 A similar report on Portugal’s involvement in the confict came from R. O’Donnell, a correspondent for the Financial Times. O’Donnell, who was in Sierra Leone, reported that the Biafran government had signed a protocol with the Portuguese government.70 Portuguese foreign afairs minister Franco Nogueira denied any such protocols between his government and Biafra and O’Donnell did not provide any further detail regarding the protocol. In a press interview at the United Nations on April 16, 1969, Nogueira, dismissed O’Donnell’s allegation of a protocol and allegations that Portugal had an arms deal with the Biafran government. Nogueira stated, “If Biafrans are receiving The Role of Portugal in the Nigeria- Biafra War 201 military aid, this aid is certainly not coming from Portugal.”71 He asserted that Portugal had only allowed the transit of goods bound for Biafra. Te British embassy in Lisbon appeared to have cleared Portugal on the question of a protocol with Biafra when it reported that it had not heard of any such protocol or formal agreement between Biafra and Portugal. Commenting on Portugal’s alleged support for Biafra, Chinua Achebe, the famous Nigerian nov- elist, stated: “Te extent of Biafran relationship to Portugal is simply said, ‘Your planes can land in our territory.’ ”72 While Achebe pointed out that he was not personally interested in the motive behind Portugal’s sympathy for Biafra and that Biafrans would have readily accepted an ofer of air support if it had come from the devil, he added that Portugal was not providing arms to Biafra.73 B. J. Evarett, an ofcial of the British embassy in Lisbon, dismissed the idea that a protocol existed, arguing that a local Financial Times correspondent in Lisbon who was well informed about the Biafran confict would have known if such a formal agreement existed between Biafra and Portugal.74 Although the Portu- guese government claimed not to have been involved in any military deal with Biafra, it was aware of the transactions between its nationals and the Biafran government or its agents. For instance, De Sousa and three other former Por- tuguese air force pilots who were involved in procuring aircraf for Biafra lodged in the ofcers’ mess in Guinea-Bissau and enjoyed military passes and the privilege of using Portuguese air force charts in Bissau.75 When the British Foreign Ofce discovered that the Portuguese pilots were assembling aircraf in Bissau for Biafran use, it convinced the Portuguese government not to authorize the Portuguese pilots to take aircraf out of Bissau.76 Nevertheless, mercenary pilots who were quite experienced were able to convince the Bissau air base com- mander to allow them to move the aircraf to Abidjan, since Ivory Coast recognized Biafra. Te growing concern about Portugal’s role in the confict led Alexander Boeker, A US assistant under- secretary for Asia, Africa, and Latin America, to tell the American ambassador to Nigeria that it was necessary to raise the issue of the Nigeria- Biafra War at the NATO meeting in order to draw the attention of Portugal to the displeasure of its NATO associates about its active support for Biafra.77 As part of its efort to discourage Portugal’s assistance to Biafra, the British government enrolled pro- Nigerian members of Parliament who had connections with people in Portugal to persuade the Portuguese nationals to stop providing facilities and mercenaries to the Biafran government or its 202 Journal of Global South Studies (Spring 2019) agents.78 John Cordle, a Member of Parliament who chaired the Conservative Party’s Committee on West Africa, championed the move. Te Nigerian government made a frst attempt to end Portuguese assistance to Biafra in October 1967 when it asked the US government to bring pressure on Portugal through the United Nations and NATO.79 Te US government did not respond to Nigeria’s request because, like West Germany, it still believed that Portugal’s assistance to Biafra was limited to providing access routes through Lisbon, Guinea- Bissau, and São Tomé for the delivery of arms and other necessary equipment.80 However, the British government was convinced that Portugal was play- ing a strategic role in sustaining the confict and it encouraged Nigerian authorities to raise the issue before the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity.81 Britain believed that by presenting the evidence gathered from de Sousa, the captured Portuguese pilot, it would be able to secure a con- demnatory note against Portugal. Te capture of de Sousa in November 1969 provided the Nigerian government with more evidence with which to criticize Portugal. His detailed description of the fow of arms from Portugal to Biafra convinced Nigerian government ofcials that Portugal was prolonging the confict in Nigeria in order to weaken its anticolonial campaign against Portugal.82 Portugal’s opposition to the anticolonial movement partly explains why Gen- eral Gowon, the leader of the Nigerian government, challenged the claims of some observers that the confict was essentially a religious war.83 Nonetheless, the Nigerian government was reluctant to raise the issue of Por- tugal’s involvement in the Nigeria-Biafra War at the UN Security Council for a number of reasons. First, the Nigerian government believed that a discussion of Portugal’s involvement might lead to other issues in the confict, especially the question of genocide by starvation, which had attracted global attention.84 Second, the Nigerian government felt that raising Portugal’s involvement might lead to some investigations that would further prolong the war.85 Te Nigerian government also believed that raising Portugal’s arms deal with Biafra at the United Nations could attract a general arms embargo that could afect their arms supply from Britain and the USSR. Te Nigerian government’s fear was justifed, given that it benefted more than Biafra from the international arms supply. Te Biafran government relied mainly on the black market for its arms supply. While France supplied arms to Biafra, it did so covertly and thus could not match the level of support that Britain and the USSR gave to Nigeria. Te The Role of Portugal in the Nigeria- Biafra War 203

Nigerian government knew that a general arms embargo would have threatened its ability to achieve a quick military victory and it was thus unwilling to present the case of Portugal’s complicity at the United Nations. Another factor that discouraged the Nigerian government from reporting Portugal to the United Nations was the former’s earlier declaration that the war was a domestic issue. From the beginning of the crisis, the Nigerian government had maintained that the confict was an internal matter that did not call for any external intervention. Raising the issue at the United Nations would have internationalized the confict and created an opportunity for other countries to look upon Biafra as an independent state. Te Nigerian government and its Brit- ish ally well understood what could happen if Biafra had a chance to bring the confict to the United Nations and ofen frustrated Biafra’s eforts to do so. Te Nigerian government was also reluctant to indict Portugal at the United Nations due to racial considerations. Britain, Nigeria’s major supporter in the confict, advised against taking an approach that might be interpreted as racist by the international community.86 Te British argued that it would be hostile and discriminatory to single out Portugal at the United Nations when Tanza- nia, Gabon, Zambia, and Ivory Coast were known to have ofcially recognized Biafra as an independent country and to have provided arms to support the secession. Apart from racial considerations, condemning Portugal at the United Nations Security Council might not have changed Portugal’s policy on the war. On the contrary, such a condemnation could have worsened Anglo- Portuguese relations. Anglo- Luso relations were already frosty because of the Rhodesian (Zimbabwe) issue. Portugal had not supported the British petition to the United Nations to impose sanctions on Rhodesia following Ian Smith’s Unilateral Dec- laration of Independence from the United Kingdom on November 11, 1965. Portugal had disagreed with Britain’s desire to impose sanctions on Rhodesia because it did not support that action regardless of the country involved.87 When it became obvious that the Portuguese question would not be raised at the United Nations, the British government suggested that the Nigerian government should engage in strong anti-Portuguese propaganda across the whole of Africa through the Organization of African Unity (OAU). Britain’s determination to shame Portugal through the OAU was not unconnected with Portu- gal’s opposition to its desire to impose sanctions on Rhodesia. Te British government’s use of the OAU as an alternative platform for dealing with the conundrum of Portugal’s support for Biafra was intended to shame the violently 204 Journal of Global South Studies (Spring 2019) anti- Portuguese commonwealth countries— Tanzania and Zambia— that supported Biafra.88 Te Nigerian government was expected to raise the issue of Portugal’s complicity in the war at the meeting of the OAU scheduled for Feb- ruary 1970. Te OAU could not hold a full-scale meeting at the heads of mission level earlier than February because there was no machinery that could enable Nigeria to raise the issue efectively. As events turned out, the war ended in January 1970 and the debate about Portugal’s involvement was brought to a close.

Conclusion

Portugal’s role in the Nigeria-Biafra War was a source of apprehension for the Nigerian government until the war ended in January 1970. Te Nigerian government strongly believed that Portugal’s moral and material support to Biafra prolonged the confict. Although Portugal consistently denied giving military aid to Biafra, it was implicated in the fact that Portuguese mercenaries were involved in organizing matériel for Biafra. Portugal also accorded Biafra treat- ment that amounted to de facto formal recognition under the United Nations Convention on Transit Trade of Land-Locked States. Te doctrine of transit trade of landlocked states applies only to states that are recognized by the United Nations. Portugal was aware of that and still invoked the doctrine to defend its provision of transit facility for Biafra. Te Nigeria- Biafra War lasted as long as it did because of the strategic role Portugal played. Portugal’s ofer of its land facilities in Lisbon and its African colonies for Biafran use weakened the potency of the Nigerian government’s blockade, which might otherwise have forced Biafra’s early surrender. Portugal’s support for Biafra garnered it no obvious advantage and it was uncertain whether Portugal would have been the frst to recognize Biafra if Biafra won the war. Its colonial policy in Africa provides an interesting window into the international dimensions of the Nigeria- Biafra War because the war broke out at a time when the African continent was undergoing decolonization and Portugal had been criticized for its paternalistic dictatorship and its reluc- tance to negotiate a peaceful handover to African leaders. In addition to using the crisis to divert the attention of African countries, especially Nigeria, from supporting liberation movements in Portuguese territories in Africa, Portugal saw the war as a platform for turning Africans’ argument about the primacy of The Role of Portugal in the Nigeria- Biafra War 205 the right to self- determination against them and to buttress Portugal’s thesis that independence had been given to African states too early.

NOTES

1. “Nigeria: Te Secession of Eastern Nigeria: Memorandum from the British High Commissioner in Lagos to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Afairs,” July 7, 1967, File 25/232, National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surry (hereafer National Archives). 2. “Great Powers and Imperialist Involvement in the Biafra/Nigeria Confict,” August 29, 1969, File 1973- 5005, Te Presbyterian Church in Canada Archives (hereafer PCCA), Toronto. 3. “Te Biafran Illusion: Te Fate and Future of Non- Igbo Peoples in the Eastern States of Nigeria,” May 23, 1968, File 1973- 5005- 9- 3, PCCA. 4. J. Isawa Elaigwu, “Te Nigerian Civil War and the Angolan Civil War: Linkages between Domestic Tension and International Alignments,” Journal of Asian and African Studies 12, nos. 1– 4 (1977): 221. 5. Alexis Heraclides, “Secessionist Minorities and External Involvement,” International Organization 44, no. 3 (1990): 348. See also David Williams, “Nigeria: One or Many,” African Afairs 68, no. 272 (1969): 247. 6. Lasse Heerten and A Dirk Moses, “Te Nigeria- Biafra War: Postcolonial Confict and the Question of Genocide,” Journal of Genocide Research 16, nos. 2– 3 (2014): 176. 7. Elaigwu, “Te Nigerian Civil War,” 222. 8. John J. Stremlau, Te International Politics of the Nigerian Civil War, 1967– 1970 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977), 235. 9. C. L. Sulzberger, “Foreign Afairs: Te Tird Illusion,” New York Times, November 8, 1967, 45. 10. Paul M. Whitaker, “Te Revolutions of ‘Portuguese’ Africa,” Journal of Modern African Studies 8, no. 1 (1970): 15. 11. James Dufy, “Portugal in Africa,” Foreign Afairs 39 (1961): 485– 486. 12. G. J. Eddy Gouraige, “United Nations and Decolonization,” Te Black Scholar 5 (1974): 19. 13. Armindo Monteiro, “Portugal in Africa,” Journal of the Royal African Society 38 (1939): 267. 14. Eduardo C. Mondlane, “Te Kitwe Papers: Race Relations and Portuguese Colonial Policy with Special Reference to Mozambique,” Africa Today 15, no. 1 (1968): 13. 15. Monteiro, “Portugal in Africa,” 267. 16. Ibid., 271. 17. Alan K. Smith, “António Salazar and the Reversal of Portuguese Colonial Policy,” Journal of African History 15, no. 4 (1974): 654. 206 Journal of Global South Studies (Spring 2019)

18. Henry Kamm, “Portugal’s Absurd Empire: Portugal Has Not Just Failed Her Africans,” New York Times, August 18, 1974. 19. Marvine Howe, “Chased from Africa, Adrif and Jobless in Portugal,” New York Times, March 7, 1976, PE1. 20. Monteiro, “Portugal in Africa,” 272. 21. D. M. Friedenberg, “Portugal in Africa: Te Blind Beating the Lame,” Africa Today 8 (1961): 5– 6. 22. Smith, “António Salazar and the Reversal of Portuguese Colonial Policy,” 654. 23. Ibid. 24. Du fy, “Portugal in Africa,” 486. 25. C. L. Sulzberger, “Foreign Afairs: Isolation Won’t Pay in Portugal,” New York Times, January 6, 1962, 18. 26. Smith, “António Salazar and the Reversal of Portuguese Colonial Policy,” 654. 27. “Moral Victory for Africa,” New York Times, August 2, 1963, 26. 28. Ibid. 29. Ibid. 30. William Minter, “Allies in Empire: Part III: American Foreign Policy and Portuguese Colonialism,” Africa Today 17, no. 4 (1970): 34. 31. Ibid. 32. Ibid. 33. See Antόnia Costa Pinto and Stewart Lloyd- Jones, Te Last Empire: Tirty Years of Portuguese Decolonization (Bristol: Intellect Ltd, 2004); Miguel Bandeira Jerόnimo and Antonio Costa Pinto, Te Ends of European Colonial Empires: Cases and Comparisons (UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015). 34. “Moral Victory for Africa,” 26. 35. Mondlane, “Te Kitwe Papers: Race Relations and Portuguese Colonial Policy,” 18. 36. Du fy, “Portugal in Africa,” 486. 37. See T. Hodgkin, Nationalism in Colonial Africa (London: Frederick Muller, 1956). 38. Kamm, “Portugal’s Absurd Empire.” 39. See Caroline Elkins, Britain’s Gulag: Te Brutal End of Empire in Kenya (London: Pimlico, 2005). 40. “Germany Returns Namibian Skulls Used for Experiments,” VOA, October 3, 2011. 41. Sulzberger, “Foreign Afairs: Te Tird Illusion,” 45. 42. Ibid. 43. John de St. Jorre, Te Nigerian Civil War (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1972), 219. 44. Sulzberger, “Foreign Afairs: Te Tird Illusion,” 45. The Role of Portugal in the Nigeria- Biafra War 207

45. See Norrie Macqueen, Te Decolonization of Portuguese Africa: Metropolitan Revolution and the Dissolution of Empire (New York: Longman, 1997). 46. Alfred Friendly, “Nigerian Leader Accuses Lisbon of Aid to Rebels,” New York Times, October 31, 1967, 6. 47. J. B. Johnston, “Memorandum on Portugal to the Foreign and Commonwealth Ofce,” December 18, 1969, File FCO 65/285, National Archives. 48. T. L. Hughes, “Research Memorandum: Western European and Canadian Attitudes Towards Nigerian- Biafran Confict,” August 1, 1968, Department of State Telegram Pol 27, RG59, Department of State Central Files, Confdential U.S. State Department Central Files, Biafra- Nigeria 1967– 1969, Political Afairs (hereafer RG59, Biafra- Nigeria), National Archives and Records Administration (hereafer NARA), Washington, DC. 49. Ibid. 50. Friendly, “Nigerian Leader Accuses Lisbon of Aid to Rebels.” 51. “Arms Aid to Biafra,” January 27, 1968, Department of State Telegram Pol 27, hereafer RG59, Biafra- Nigeria, NARA. 52. Ibid. Robert Goldstein, whose frm had been handling publicity for US flm actors, said that Biafra was the frst foreign client his frm had handled. He committed himself to the Biafran project because of the mass starvation in the blockaded territory of Biafra. Goldstein planned to raise $1 million in Los Angeles in March 1968 by using the talents of many top movie stars. He named the scheme “A Bond Drive for Biafra.” He later abandoned the project when Robert P. Smith, an ofcial of the American Embassy in Lagos, told him in a meeting in Washington on February 14, 1968 that his activities with the Biafran government were causing embarrassment to the US government. 53. “Arms Aid to Biafra.” 54. Hughes, “Research Memorandum: Western European and Canadian Attitudes Towards Nigerian- Biafran Confict.” 55. George Shepherd, “Civil Wars and the International Arms Trafc,” Africa Today 14, no. 6 (1967): 5. 56. Hughes, “Research Memorandum: Western European and Canadian Attitudes Towards Nigerian- Biafran Confict.” 57. Consequences of the Nigerian Civil War, 25, March 28, 1968, Department of State Telegram Pol 27, hereafer RG59, Biafra- Nigeria, NARA. 58. “Biafra: Possible Additional American Citizen Participation in Airlif Operation,” August 15, 1968, Department of State Airgram, Pol 27, hereafer RG59, Biafra-Nigeria, NARA. 59. Hughes, “Research Memorandum: Western European and Canadian Attitudes Towards Nigerian- Biafran Confict.” 208 Journal of Global South Studies (Spring 2019)

60. Friendly, “Nigerian Leader Accuses Lisbon of Aid to Rebels.” 61. Al J. Venter, Biafra’s War, 1967– 1970: A Tribal Confict in Nigeria that Lef a Million Dead (England: Helion and Company, 2016), 247. 62. Johnston, “Memorandum on Portugal to the Foreign and Commonwealth Ofce.” 63. “1965 Convention on Transit Trade of Land- Locked States,” accessed August 22, 2015, http: //www .jus .uio .no /english /services /library /treaties /09 /9 - 04 /land - locked - states .xml. 64. J. B. Evarett, “Portugal/Nigeria: Memorandum to W. J. Watts of West African Department,” August 27, 1969, FCO 65/285, National Archives. 65. “Press Release Issued by the Federal Ministry of Information, Lagos,” December 9, 1969, FCO 65/285, National Archives. 66. “Nigeria: Portuguese Involvement: Telegram from the British High Commission, Lagos to the Foreign and Commonwealth Ofce, London,” November 14, 1969, FCO 65/285, National Archives. 67. “Press Release Issued by the Federal Ministry of Information, Lagos.” 68. “Nigeria: Portuguese Involvement, Guidance Telegram No 228 from Stewart to Foreign and Commonwealth Ofce,” December 12, 1969, FCO 65/285, National Archives. 69. Ibid. 70. “Portuguese Policy on African Questions: Memorandum from British Embassy in Lisbon to the Foreign and Commonwealth Ofce, London,” April 21, 1969, FCO 65/285, National Archives. 71. Ibid. 72. Chinua Achebe, “Achebe on Biafra,” Transition 36 (1968): 36. 73. Ibid. 74. Evarett, “Portugal/Nigeria.” 75. “Nigeria: Portuguese Involvement, Guidance Telegram No 228.” 76. Venter, Biafra’s War, 247. 77. “Deterring Portuguese Assistance to the Republic of Biafra,” August 20, 1967, Department of State, Airgram, Pol 27, hereafer RG59, Biafra- Nigeria, NARA. 78. Ibid. 79. Friendly, “Nigerian Leader Accuses Lisbon of Aid to Rebels,” 6. 80. “Deterring Portuguese Assistance to the Republic of Biafra.” 81. “Memorandum from the Foreign and Commonwealth Ofce to the British High Commission in Lagos,” December 23, 1969, FCO 65/285, National Archives. 82. Friendly, “Nigerian Leader Accuses Lisbon of Aid to Rebels,” 6. 83. Ibid. The Role of Portugal in the Nigeria- Biafra War 209

84. “Memorandum from the Foreign and Commonwealth Ofce to the British High Commission in Lagos,” December 23, 1969. 85. Ibid. 86. Ibid. 87. “Portuguese Policy on African Questions.” 88. “Memorandum from the Foreign and Commonwealth Ofce to the British High Commission in Lagos,” December 15, 1969, FCO 65/285, National Archives.