The Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970), also known as the Biafran War, remains one of Africa’s most devastating postcolonial conflicts. Its origins lay in the violent aftermath of independence and the instability following two military coups in 1966.
EXPLORE NOW: Military Era & Coups in Nigeria
The first coup in January 1966, led mainly by Igbo officers, overthrew the civilian government, while the counter-coup in July the same year brought Lieutenant Colonel Yakubu Gowon to power. Ethnic tensions deepened, culminating in widespread massacres of Igbos in Northern Nigeria.
Amid distrust and failed reconciliation attempts, Lieutenant Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, Military Governor of the Eastern Region, declared the Republic of Biafra on 30 May 1967. The Federal Military Government regarded this as rebellion, and war began on 6 July 1967.
Britain and the Defence of Nigeria’s Unity
Britain, Nigeria’s former colonial power, was the most significant external supporter of the Federal side. The British government under Prime Minister Harold Wilson consistently maintained that Nigeria’s territorial integrity must be preserved.
Declassified documents and diplomatic correspondence reveal that Britain supplied the Federal Military Government with military equipment and logistical support throughout the conflict. British officials argued that the war was an internal matter and sought to prevent foreign intervention that might encourage secessionist movements elsewhere in Africa.
While economic interests were certainly involved, including the presence of Shell-BP in the Niger Delta, historians note that British policy was shaped by a mix of strategic, political, and moral calculations. Preserving Nigeria’s unity was seen as crucial for regional stability and for maintaining a friendly, oil-producing Commonwealth partner in West Africa.
Thus, while access to oil informed policy discussions, Britain’s approach reflected broader geopolitical reasoning rather than the sole protection of corporate assets.
The Soviet Union and Cold War Pragmatism
Initially hesitant, the Soviet Union became Nigeria’s unexpected ally. After Western suppliers grew reluctant to provide arms, the Gowon government turned eastward. The USSR supplied MiG-17 fighter aircraft, trucks, and other military hardware to the Federal forces.
Though some reports suggest Soviet technical advisers assisted in aircraft maintenance and training, evidence of Soviet pilots flying combat missions remains inconclusive.
This cooperation reflected Cold War pragmatism rather than ideological alignment. The Soviet Union saw Nigeria as a valuable strategic partner in sub-Saharan Africa and sought to counter Western influence without promoting communism directly. For the Gowon regime, the Soviet link ensured continued access to weapons and diversified its international support network.
France, Mercenaries, and the Biafran Connection
While Britain and the Soviet Union backed the Federal Government, France emerged as Biafra’s most sympathetic foreign power.
Under President Charles de Gaulle, France adopted an ambiguous but influential policy of support for Biafra. Officially, Paris maintained neutrality, yet French intelligence services facilitated the supply of arms to Biafra through Côte d’Ivoire and Gabon.
French mercenaries, including the German-born Rolf Steiner, fought alongside Biafran forces, and French oil interests such as Elf Aquitaine saw an opportunity in a weakened Nigeria dominated by British firms.
France’s support was driven by several motives: curbing British influence in West Africa, advancing its “Françafrique” networks, and appealing to global sympathy for a people portrayed as victims of genocide. France’s involvement, though indirect, gave the Biafran cause an international profile that outstripped its actual diplomatic recognition.
African States and the Challenge of Solidarity
Within Africa, the war exposed divisions among newly independent nations.
The Organisation of African Unity (OAU) officially supported Nigeria’s territorial integrity, consistent with its principle of preserving colonial borders to prevent fragmentation. However, a few African countries broke ranks. Gabon formally recognised Biafra, while Tanzania and Zambia extended moral and diplomatic sympathy rather than official recognition.
This split illustrated the tension between the OAU’s commitment to unity and emerging humanitarian consciousness. Many African leaders feared that recognising Biafra would legitimise secession elsewhere, endangering fragile national boundaries across the continent.
Humanitarian Crisis and Global Awareness
By late 1968, the Federal blockade of Biafra had caused severe famine and medical collapse. Civilian suffering became the defining image of the conflict.
International media coverage, particularly photographs and television footage of emaciated children, provoked outrage across Europe and North America. Relief agencies such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Caritas Internationalis, and church missions struggled to deliver food and medicine amid government restrictions and air raids.
Estimates of civilian deaths vary widely, from hundreds of thousands to over one million, though exact numbers remain uncertain.
This humanitarian tragedy inspired a new wave of activism. French doctors who had worked in Biafra, including Bernard Kouchner, later founded Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in 1971. MSF’s creation marked a pivotal moment in global humanitarianism, combining medical aid with public testimony against silence and political manipulation.
Economic Interests and International Rivalries
Beneath the moral debates lay economic and strategic calculations.
Nigeria’s newly discovered oil wealth attracted intense foreign interest. British and Dutch firms dominated exploration and refining through Shell-BP, while French companies sought entry via their influence with Biafran leaders.
Both Western and Eastern blocs viewed Nigeria as vital for access to natural resources and as a potential ally in the ideological contest of the Cold War. Consequently, most governments publicly endorsed Nigeria’s unity but privately competed for post-war advantage.
This interplay between moral concern and material interest defined the war’s global dimension: a local struggle shaped by foreign calculations and shifting alliances.
Conclusion: A War Beyond Borders
The Nigerian Civil War was not merely an internal conflict; it was a mirror of the world’s geopolitical and moral contradictions. Britain and the Soviet Union—rivals elsewhere—stood on the same side in defending Nigeria’s unity. France, pursuing its own African strategy, quietly armed the secessionists.
Meanwhile, the humanitarian crisis turned the suffering of Biafra into a global cause, transforming the ethics of international aid.
The legacy endures in Nigeria’s national consciousness and in the history of modern humanitarianism: a reminder that wars fought over sovereignty and identity rarely remain confined within borders.
Author’s Note
This article draws upon verified historical research, declassified diplomatic records, and academic publications to present a factual account of foreign involvement in the Nigerian Civil War. It avoids speculative interpretations and reflects documented realities from multiple credible sources.
READ MORE: Ancient & Pre-Colonial Nigeria
References
Falola, Toyin & Heaton, Matthew. A History of Nigeria. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Stremlau, John. The International Politics of the Nigerian Civil War, 1967–1970. Princeton University Press, 1977.
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). “The Origins of MSF and the Biafran Crisis.” MSF Archives, 2020.
Oyeniyi, Bukola A. The Biafran War and Postcolonial Humanitarianism. Palgrave Macmillan, 2021.
Britannica, Nigerian Civil War, accessed 2025.
