The international community’s approach to self-determination has often been inconsistent, reflecting more about geopolitics than universal principles of justice. In recent years, the recognition of Palestine has gained momentum, while the Biafran struggle in Nigeria continues to be met with silence. This contrast raises pressing questions about how the world decides which movements deserve recognition and which remain ignored.
A Tale of Two Histories
The Palestinian quest for statehood traces back to 1948, following mass displacement and decades of conflict with Israel. Today, more than 130 countries recognize Palestine, and its case is firmly embedded in the global diplomatic agenda.
The Biafran struggle, by contrast, dates to 1967, when the southeastern region of Nigeria declared independence. The civil war that followed left more than a million people dead, largely from famine. Though Biafra was reintegrated into Nigeria in 1970, grievances of marginalization, underdevelopment, and political exclusion have kept the demand for independence alive.
Why the Difference?
Geopolitics and Interests: Palestine sits in the Middle East, a region central to global oil, security, and religious politics. The world cannot ignore it. Nigeria, meanwhile, is Africa’s largest oil producer and a key Western ally, making foreign powers reluctant to challenge its territorial integrity.
Diplomatic Backing: Palestine enjoys strong support from Arab nations, Muslim communities, and blocs at the United Nations. Biafra lacks comparable advocacy on the global stage, despite an active diaspora.
African Union’s Position: The AU maintains a strict policy of respecting colonial-era borders, fearing that recognition of Biafra would open the floodgates for separatist claims across Africa.
Narratives of Legitimacy: While Palestine is increasingly framed as a justice and human rights issue, Biafra is often portrayed by Nigeria’s government as a “secessionist threat,” shaping how the world perceives its legitimacy.
The Human Side
Beyond politics, the reality on the ground remains urgent. Many in southeastern Nigeria feel excluded from national leadership, complain of economic marginalization, and face military crackdowns on pro-Biafra demonstrations. For them, the lack of recognition is not abstract diplomacy—it is about survival, dignity, and the right to determine their future.
Conclusion
The recognition of Palestine and the sidelining of Biafra expose the double standards of international diplomacy. While one struggle benefits from strategic alliances, the other is suppressed under the weight of global interests and African political caution.
Yet, the principle of self-determination cannot be applied selectively. If the world accepts Palestine’s right to exist, it must also acknowledge that Biafra’s grievances are real and unresolved. Recognition may be delayed, but the demand for justice cannot be erased.