Lagos / London — May 31, 2025
As Nigeria erupted into one of Africa’s most brutal post‑independence conflicts on July 6, 1967, some international powers that claimed neutrality were anything but neutral. According to a detailed historical account by Africa Rebirth, Britain was deeply implicated in the Nigerian Civil War—now known as the Biafran War—not out of principle, but to protect its vast oil interests in the breakaway Eastern region.
When the Eastern Region declared itself the independent “Republic of Biafra,” it shocked the world — and triggered a humanitarian catastrophe. Over the course of the war, more than one million people, mostly civilians, died from starvation, disease, and conflict. Yet, according to declassified records and scholarly research, Britain’s involvement was not passive. It backed the Nigerian federal government with weapons, diplomatic cover, and political support, all while maintaining deep economic ties with the oil-rich eastern provinces.
Colonial Legacies & Oil Foundations
The roots of Britain’s role go back to colonial-era decisions. Under British rule, Nigeria’s regions were merged in 1914 under Lord Frederick Lugard. The colonial administration largely ignored deep ethnic, economic, and cultural divisions — decisions that would later fuel conflict. The discovery of commercial oil in Oloibiri (in what would become Biafra) by Shell‑BP—a British-Dutch firm—drew London’s focus. Shell‑BP had made huge investments in Nigeria, and by 1967, 84% of the country’s oil production came from regions aligned with Biafra.
Britain imported around 40% of Nigerian oil, making the Eastern Region’s output strategically vital to London. But when Biafra demanded royalty payments directly from Shell‑BP, the British government balked; paying Biafra might lend legitimacy to a secessionist state. Ultimately, Shell‑BP made only a token payment under pressure, while British officials quietly urged the company to resume payments to Lagos.
Arms, Blockades, and a Humanitarian Disaster
While Britain publicly portrayed neutrality, it covertly supplied arms to the Nigerian military. Africa Rebirth claims that British weapons, vehicles, and aircraft made their way to Nigerian forces, strengthening their capacity to crush the secession. Diplomatic dispatches from the time reportedly downplayed the scale of the humanitarian crisis. When relief agencies raised alarm about starving Biafran civilians, British officials questioned the reports, suggesting bias or political manipulation.
Journalists who tried to draw attention to the suffering were also pressured. One example is Frederick Forsyth, who resigned from the BBC in protest, saying his reports were being censored. Meanwhile, Biafran leaders leaned heavily into public relations efforts, circulating heartbreaking images of starving children to generate sympathy across Europe and America. Despite global outrage, major powers stuck to their strategic interests.
Wider International Dynamics
Britain was not alone in influencing the war. According to Africa Rebirth, France, Portugal, and even Israel played nuanced roles. France quietly provided arms and advisors, often through a French oil company that stood to benefit. Portugal reportedly allowed Biafran aircraft to use its territory for refuelling and logistics. Israel, though more discreet, gave moral support and humanitarian aid, navigating a complex diplomatic line.
Legacy: A War for Oil, Not Justice
The human cost of the war was staggering. By its end in January 1970, up to two million people had died — many from starvation as a result of the blockade and bombing. Despite the public facade of moral restraint, Britain’s wartime conduct was driven by strategic economics. According to the Africa Rebirth piece, London prioritized a unified Nigeria not because it believed in national unity, but because a “One-Nigeria” outcome secured its access to vital oil infrastructure.
The author argues that Britain has never fully faced the historical reckoning for its actions. While other post-colonial conflicts involving European powers—such as in Kenya or India—are widely studied, Britain’s role in the Biafran War remains under-discussed in mainstream narratives.
Why This Matters Today
Decades later, the Biafran War remains a critical case study of how foreign powers can manipulate post-colonial conflicts for resource gain. Several key lessons emerge:
- Strategic resources like oil shape foreign policy decisions — even at the cost of human lives.
- Post-colonial borders and political structures, drawn under colonial rule, still influence conflict dynamics today.
- Historical narratives may obscure economic motivations, making accountability difficult.
Why Dalena Reporters Covers This: This story matters not just for historical memory, but for modern-day policy debates. Understanding how colonial-era resource extraction shaped Nigeria’s civil war offers powerful insights into the geopolitical origins of current conflicts and economic inequalities — especially in resource-rich regions.