Nigeria is one of the few nations among the roughly 190 countries in the world that fought a civil war — an internal armed conflict — in order to preserve its territorial unity and remain one indivisible nation. The country’s experience during the Biafran War remains one of the most defining and painful episodes in its chequered history.
Nigeria, however, is far from being alone in experiencing internal conflict. Across the world, civil wars have erupted wherever deep ethnic, regional, ideological, religious, or political divisions existed within states. A civil war is generally defined as an armed conflict fought within a country between the government and organized internal challengers, resulting in at least 100 battle-related deaths.
To provide context for a broader examination of nations that have experienced such conflicts, the following global facts are instructive:
1. More than 70 of the world’s approximately 190 nations have experienced major civil wars since the end of the Second World War alone.
2. The Correlates of War Project documented nearly 300 civil wars globally between 1816 and 2014.
3. During the Cold War era, civil wars lasted an average of 141 percent longer whenever global superpowers intervened.
In essence, almost every nation marked by deep regional, ethnic, ideological, or political fault lines has witnessed some form of internal armed conflict at one point or another.
To further illustrate how widespread civil wars have been across the globe, below is a regional breakdown of countries that have either experienced or are still experiencing civil wars and internal armed conflicts.
Africa.
<span;><span;>* Sudan/South Sudan: Sudan’s civil wars began in 1955, involving prolonged North-South conflicts and tribal violence. South Sudan later descended into civil war from 2013 to 2020.
<span;><span;>* Democratic Republic of the Congo: Cycles of conflict have persisted since the 1960s.
<span;><span;>* Angola: Post-independence civil war lasted from 1975 to 2002.
<span;><span;>* Ethiopia: The Ethiopian Civil War lasted from 1974 to 1991, with new internal conflicts continuing in recent years.
<span;><span;>* Liberia: Civil wars occurred between 1989–1996 and 1999–2003.
<span;><span;>* Sierra Leone: Civil war lasted from 1991 to 2002.
<span;><span;>* Rwanda: Civil conflict culminated in the 1994 genocide.
<span;><span;>* Burundi: Civil war persisted from 1993 to 2005.
<span;><span;>* Somalia: Ongoing internal conflict since 1991.
<span;><span;>* Libya: Civil conflicts erupted in 2011 and have continued intermittently since 2014.
<span;><span;>* Central African Republic: Internal conflict has continued since 2012.
The Americas.
<span;><span;>* United States: The American Civil War lasted from 1861 to 1865.
<span;><span;>* Mexico: The Mexican Revolution spanned 1910 to 1920.
<span;><span;>* Colombia: “La Violencia” lasted from 1948 to 1958, followed by continued insurgencies from 1964 onward.
<span;><span;>* Guatemala: Civil war lasted from 1960 to 1996.
<span;><span;>* El Salvador: Civil war lasted from 1979 to 1991.
<span;><span;>* Nicaragua: Internal conflicts stretched from the 1970s into 1990.
<span;><span;>* Paraguay: Civil wars occurred 5th 1911–1912 and 1922–1923.
<span;><span;>* Honduras: Armed internal conflicts occurred in 1919 and 1924.
<span;><span;>* Haiti: The First and Second Caco Wars occurred between 1915 and 1920.
Europe.
<span;><span;>* England/United Kingdom: The English Civil War lasted from 1642 to 1651.
<span;><span;>* Russia/USSR: The Russian Civil War lasted from 1917 to 1923.
<span;><span;>* Spain: The Spanish Civil War occurred between 1936 and 1939.
<span;><span;>* Finland: The Finnish Civil War took place in 1918.
<span;><span;>* Ireland: The Irish Civil War lasted from 1922 to 1923.
<span;><span;>* Greece: Civil war occurred from 1946 to 1949.
<span;><span;>* Italy: The Italian Civil War unfolded between 1943 and 1945 during World War II.
<span;><span;>* Austria: The Austrian Civil War erupted briefly in February 1934.
<span;><span;>* Croatia: The region witnessed battles during Roman civil wars in 316 and 351 AD.
<span;><span;>* Denmark: Historical Danish civil wars were fought during the medieval era.
Asia and the Middle East.
<span;><span;>* China: China experienced the Warlord Era (1912–1928) and the Chinese Civil War (1927–1937 and 1945–1949).
<span;><span;>* Cambodia: Civil war lasted from 1967 to 1975.
<span;><span;>* Vietnam: The Vietnam conflict is often partly classified as a civil war.
<span;><span;>* Afghanistan: Multiple civil wars occurred between 1928–1929, 1992–1996, and 1996–2001.
<span;><span;>* Myanmar: Internal conflict has persisted since 1948.
<span;><span;>* Syria: The Syrian Civil War has continued since 2011.
<span;><span;>* Yemen: The country has endured multiple civil wars and ongoing internal conflict.
<span;><span;>* Lebanon: Civil war lasted from 1975 to 1990.
<span;><span;>* Iraq: The Iraqi-Kurdish conflict spanned much of the 20th century.
<span;><span;>* India: The Naxalite-Maoist insurgency has continued since 1967.
Other Notable Cases
<span;><span;>* Israel/Palestine: Various Palestinian factional conflicts, including the Fatah-Hamas struggle.
<span;><span;>* Turkey: Revolts occurred during the Turkish War of Independence between 1919 and 1922.
<span;><span;>* Poland: Anti-communist resistance movements persisted from 1944 to 1963.
Against this global backdrop, Nigeria’s civil war from 1967 to 1970 stands out not only because of the scale of human suffering involved, but also because the emotional, political, and ethnic wounds it created remain largely unhealed decades after the guns fell silent.
Having established that most countries across the world have experienced one form of civil war or internal armed conflict, it is important to distinguish between those nations that have successfully healed from their traumatic pasts, those still in the process of healing, and those where reconciliation appears distant or even unattainable. Equally important are the reasons behind each of these outcomes.
From that standpoint, it becomes necessary to examine the factors responsible for the persistence of divisions in different jurisdictions despite various reconciliation efforts and interventions. Such an inquiry will also help in identifying workable solutions to the lingering wounds inflicted by Nigeria’s Biafran War, which, more than half a century after the conflict ended in 1970, remain largely unhealed
The unresolved scars of the civil war have continued to simmer beneath the surface over the decades, occasionally erupting in different forms. This reality is reflected in the separatist agitations of groups such as IPOB and MASSOB, whose activities periodically reignite memories of the conflict. These manifestations range from “sit-at-home” orders imposed by agitators on designated days to violent confrontations between separatist militias and Nigerian security forces.
Indeed, the publication or launch of books by personalities associated with the Nigerian Civil War — even when the war is not necessarily the central subject of the work — almost always rekindles emotions tied to that painful era.
For instance, the launch of my 2023 book, Leading From the Streets: Media Interventions by a Public Intellectual, 1999–2019, for which General Yakubu Gowon graciously wrote the foreword, stirred considerable emotions among some Nigerians-particularly our brothers from the east, clearly the most affected victims who had neither forgotten nor forgiven the events of the civil war. In fact, a number of individuals declined to attend the launch simply because, emotionally, they had yet to attain closure or healing.
My strenuous attempts to persuade some of them through WhatsApp discussion groups proved futile. In fact, my interventions eventually led to my removal from a few of those platforms because emotions were running high. In making my case, I pointed to post-World War II Germany, where despite the Holocaust — arguably the worst crime against humanity committed against the Jewish people — Germans and Jews have, over time, found pathways toward reconciliation and coexistence, including thriving business and diplomatic relationships.
Although the backlash surrounding my book launch was relatively mild, it pales in comparison to the controversy generated by the recent public presentation of General Yakubu Gowon’s memoir, My Life of Duty and Allegiance, launched on May 19, 2026, at the Bola Ahmed Tinubu International Conference Centre in Abuja.
Before delving deeper into why the wounds of the Biafran War remain unhealed — and how healing might eventually occur — it is important to briefly examine the central theme of Gowon’s memoir, which has stirred controversy in much the same way as former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s My Command and General Ibrahim Babangida’s memoirs did in earlier years.
In essence, the central theme of Gowon’s 881-page memoir revolves around duty, national unity, and what he considers an attempt to set the historical record straight regarding the Nigerian Civil War.
The memoir is framed around three major ideas.
First is the concept of duty above self. The title, My Life of Duty and Allegiance, reflects Gowon’s portrayal of himself as a reluctant leader who made difficult decisions primarily to preserve Nigeria’s unity rather than out of personal ambition
Second is the philosophy of “No Victor, No Vanquished,” which remains the cornerstone of his post-war legacy. Gowon argues that the Federal Government’s 3Rs policy — Reconciliation, Reconstruction, and Rehabilitation — was a deliberate strategy aimed at reintegrating the defeated Biafran side into Nigeria and preventing permanent national fragmentation.
Third, the book seeks to clarify contentious aspects of history. Gowon attempts to counter what he perceives as distortions surrounding the collapse of the Aburi Accord, his relationship with military figures such as Murtala Mohammed and Olusegun Obasanjo, Nigeria’s diplomatic alignment with the Soviet Union during the war, and allegations regarding Ojukwu’s foreign support network. Essentially, the memoir represents Gowon’s effort to ensure that his actions and decisions are judged after hearing his own side of the story.
Put simply, Gowon’s argument can be summarized as follows: “I acted to keep Nigeria united; here is why I made those decisions, and here is what truly happened.”
Before Gowon’s memoir, another prominent wartime figure, General Olusegun Obasanjo, had also authored the controversial book My Command. Published in 1980, it documented his experiences as commander of the 3rd Marine Commando Division during the Nigerian Civil War.
Obasanjo’s division was the military formation that advanced from the Mid-West into Biafra and ultimately accepted the Biafran surrender in January 1970. The memoir remains historically significant because it is one of the few firsthand accounts written by a senior federal military commander involved directly in the conflict. Historians and researchers frequently rely on it for operational details concerning the final stages of the war.
As expected, however, “My Command” also generated controversy, particularly because Obasanjo’s account differs from those of other commanders regarding who ultimately brought the war to an end and the precise circumstances surrounding Biafra’s surrender.
Like the memoirs of Generals Ibrahim Babangida and Yakubu Gowon, Olusegun Obasanjo’s My Command is also strongly defensive in tone, particularly regarding his wartime decisions and military leadership. In the book, Obasanjo not only justifies many of his command choices but also openly criticizes some of his superiors and colleagues in the military hierarchy.
The most recent contribution to this growing body of military memoirs before Gowon’s publication came from General Ibrahim Babangida, another prominent wartime commander who later became Nigeria’s military Head of State. Unsurprisingly, his memoir also stirred controversy. While the Nigerian Civil War featured in discussions surrounding the book, the greater public debate centered on the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election — an event many believe had an almost equally destabilizing effect on Nigeria’s political evolution.
Titled “A Journey in Service”, Babangida’s memoir follows the same broad pattern as those of Gowon and Obasanjo: an attempt by former military rulers to correct what they consider long-standing misconceptions about their actions, decisions, and legacies while in power.
That is precisely why a comparative examination of the context and content of the three books becomes important. Such an exercise helps illuminate the motivations, perspectives, and historical justifications advanced by these influential military leaders who played significant roles in shaping modern Nigeria.
Although none of them can be compared directly to General Park Chung-hee, the former military ruler credited with transforming South Korea into an industrial and economic powerhouse, the trio of Gowon, Obasanjo, and Babangida undeniably left profound marks on Nigeria’s political and developmental trajectory. Among them, Obasanjo stands out as the only one who, like Park, later transitioned from military rule to civilian democratic leadership.
The broader objective of placing these issues in historical perspective is perhaps to encourage greater empathy among Nigerians and foster a willingness to forgive these aging leaders, many of whom are now in the twilight of their lives In different ways, they appear to be expressing varying degrees of remorse while also seeking understanding, redemption, or historical vindication.
Admittedly, some victims and affected communities may feel that the gestures made so far fall short of genuine accountability or justice. Nevertheless, lessons from other societies suggest that after more than fifty years, both victims and perpetrators may need to find pathways toward healing and reconciliation in order to move forward without the perpetual burden of guilt, resentment, and historical torment — much like the gradual reconciliation that occurred between Germans and Jews after the Holocaust.
Before concluding this piece, it’s important we delve a bit more in Babangida’s tome.
Published on February 20, 2025, in Abuja,the 420-page, 13-chapter memoir generated widespread public interest and controversy for three major reasons.
First was his treatment of the June 12, 1993 election annulment, which became the dominant talking point surrounding the book. For the first time publicly, Babangida expressed regret and acknowledged that Chief MKO Abiola won the election. Critics, however, dismissed the admission as belated and overly defensive.
Second was his stated motivation for writing the memoir. According to Babangida, he deliberately waited more than three decades before telling his side of the story so that a new generation of Nigerians could evaluate his tenure without the emotional intensity that surrounded events at the time. He also argued that he wanted to correct what he described as uninformed narratives about his administration.
Third was the mixed public reaction to the book. While critics accused him of attempting to rewrite history, others argued that the memoir enriches Nigeria’s historical record “warts and all,” by documenting major political and military events, including aspects of the civil war era.
Returning to the broader issue of forgiveness and reconciliation, it is important to recognize that the Holocaust did not permanently destroy Jewish life, commerce, or engagement with Germany. Rather, post-1945, Germany consciously rebuilt economic, diplomatic, and social relations with Jewish individuals, communities, and institutions both domestically and internationally.
Today, Germany is home to an estimated 100,000 to 120,000 Jews, most of them residing in cities such as Berlin, Frankfurt, and Munich. Jewish businesses, law firms, technology startups, cultural institutions, and synagogues operate openly and successfully. Berlin, in particular, has evolved into a vibrant center for Jewish cultural and entrepreneurial activity.
Indeed, the Central Council of Jews in Germany is today a formally recognized institution that engages actively with the German government and major business organizations.
Remarkably, despite the horrors of the Holocaust, Germany and Israel now maintain strong economic ties, with Germany serving as Israel’s largest trading partner in Europe. Bilateral trade between both countries exceeded €12 billion in 2023, covering sectors such as machinery, chemicals, automobiles, electronics, and pharmaceuticals.
Major German corporations, including Siemens, BASF, SAP, and Mercedes-Benz, maintain operations, partnerships, or investments in Israel, while Israel’s technology ecosystem continues to attract substantial German venture capital and corporate funding.
Beyond commerce, Germany has also institutionalized Holocaust remembrance and reconciliation within its national consciousness. Holocaust denial is illegal, and Jewish-German relations form a formal component of Germany’s civic education and state policy. Although antisemitism still exists, as it does elsewhere in Europe, Germany has made post-war reconciliation a cornerstone of both its domestic and foreign policy.
Thus, rather than ending German-Jewish relations, the post-war era transformed reconciliation into a framework for coexistence and mutual advancement because both sides, over time, chose healing over perpetual hostility.
Against that backdrop, the obvious question arises: if Jews and Germans, despite the Holocaust, could gradually rebuild relationships and move forward, why has reconciliation between Nigeria and many Biafrans remained so elusive more than five decades after the civil war?
One possible answer is that reparations, institutional reforms, and deliberate reconciliation policies played major roles in accelerating healing in post-war Germany. In Nigeria’s case, meaningful reconciliation may similarly require addressing longstanding grievances that continue to fuel separatist agitations by groups such as IPOB and MASSOB.
Among such grievances is the perception of political inequity, particularly the fact that the South-East geopolitical zone consists of only five states, whereas most other geopolitical zones in Nigeria have six states. To many in the region, this imbalance symbolizes continued marginalization within Nigeria’s federal structure.
The Biafran War in Historical Context
<span;><span;>* May 30, 1967: Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu declares the Republic of Biafra.
<span;><span;>* July 6, 1967 – January 15, 1970: The Nigerian Civil War takes place. Nigeria imposes a blockade on Biafra, resulting in widespread famine and the deaths of an estimated one to three million civilians, mostly from starvation.
<span;><span;>* January 15, 1970: Biafra surrenders. General Gowon declares a policy of “No Victor, No Vanquished” and launches the 3Rs programme: Reconciliation, Reconstruction, and Rehabilitation.
The Biafran War occurred during one of the most turbulent periods in Nigeria’s history — barely six years after independence and amid successive military coups, ethnic tensions, and political instability. The conflict fundamentally shaped modern Nigeria and explains why issues of national unity, federalism, equity, and inclusion remain central themes in Nigerian.
It is in the context of Gen Gowon’s 3 Rs- Reconciliation ,Reintegration and Reconstruction , that the lgbos should be given a chance to heal.
And if l were gen.Gowon, who l regard as a father figure, the implementation of the 3 Rs so that the lgbos can have a sense of belonging to Nigeria again, would be the center piece of my community service for the rest of my life time. As for Generals Babangida and Gowon,making Nigerians love them again must be a task that must be done by serving more as uniting rather than dividing force that both of them, especially OBJ seems to have been in the past.
Who knows, supporting Peter Obi for president in the various guises that he has done in the past two presidential elections circles may be part of OBJ’S restitution.
But restitution should not be by taking political sides, which amounts to partisanship ,and which is probably why his quest has so far failed to materialize. Without it being all encompassing, expecting healing may be like the proverbial Waiting for Godot- a Samuel Beckett’s 1953 absurdist play about two guys, Vladimir and Estragon, who spend the whole thing waiting by a tree for someone named Godot who never shows up.
As such, l reckon that for genuine restitution to happen,it should be pursued from the prism of statesmanship,equity, and justice rather than raw political calculation.
Historically, there are records of nations that healed after internal wars.
Although,a civil war can tear a country apart, but quite a few have pulled themselves back together through a mix of power-sharing, economic rebuilding, and deliberate reconciliation.
Below are the clearest examples:
1. Spain – Spanish Civil War 1936-1939
After 3 years of brutal civil war and 40 years of Franco’s dictatorship, Spain transitioned to democracy in the 1970s. The key was the _Pacto de Olvido_ – an agreement to not prosecute past crimes and focus on moving forward. EU membership in 1986 accelerated economic recovery. It’s not perfect, but Spain is now stable, democratic, and one of Europe’s largest economies.
2. Rwanda – Rwandan Civil War & Genocide 1994.
One of the fastest post-conflict recoveries on record. After ∼800,000 deaths, Rwanda used _gacaca_ community courts and a strict policy against ethnic division. GDP per capita grew ∼7% annually from 2000-2019. Kigali went from ruins to one of Africa’s cleanest, safest capitals. The healing is fragile and politically controlled, but the physical and economic reconstruction is real.
3. Northern Ireland – The Troubles 1968-1998
A low-intensity civil conflict with ∼3,500 deaths. The 1998 Good Friday Agreement created power-sharing between Unionists and Nationalists. Violence dropped 90%+, and the economy integrated with both the UK and Ireland. The LSE case study on it calls it “reconstruction without full reconciliation”, but it’s held for 25+ years.
4. Côte d’Ivoire – Civil Wars 2002-2007, 2010-2011
After two civil wars split the country north-south, recovery focused on economic projects that forced cooperation. An ITTO forest restoration project brought former enemies together to rebuild degraded forests and run cooperatives. Cocoa production rebounded, and 9 cooperatives with 7000+ members now manage warehouses and food processing. It’s a case where economic interdependence drove social healing.
5. Finland & Ireland – Post-Civil War 1918-1922
Both had short but bitter civil wars right after independence. Finland integrated the losing Red side through land reform and political inclusion. Ireland did the same via the 1922-1938 period, rebuilding national identity without purging the opposition. Both are now stable, high-trust democracies.
6. United States – American Civil War 1861-1865
The first large-scale “Reconstruction” project in social science terms. It was messy and incomplete, but by 1900 the U.S. had reintegrated politically and became an industrial superpower. The post-1865 period is still studied as a baseline for post-civil war state rebuilding.
What made healing work in these cases
<span;><span;>- Power-sharing deals: Northern Ireland, Rwanda, South Sudan’s 2018 agreement. If one side is completely excluded, fighting restarts.
<span;><span;>- Economic interdependence: Côte d’Ivoire’s cooperatives, Spain’s EU integration, Germany post-WW2 under the Marshall Plan.
<span;><span;>- Deliberate reconciliation mechanisms: Gacaca courts, truth commissions, or amnesties to avoid endless cycles of revenge.
<span;><span;>- Clear end to the war: Reconstruction fails when hostilities might resume, like Angola and Liberia in the 90s.
Countries like Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Iraq are still in the “asking whether and how” phase of reconstruction. The pattern is: without political settlement first, economic aid alone does not make it work.
If the nations listed above have done it successfully, there is no reason Nigeria can not achieve a similar feat, if may term as such.
President Bola Tinubu’s administration has a golden opportunity to seize the moment to commence the implementation of the 3 Rs policy introduced by Gen. Gowon which has remained in abeyance since 1970 when the war ended.
If president Tinubu shares in the goal to facilitate the healing of the wounds inflicted on the lgbos during the unfortunate civil war, he can adopt it as one of his goals by incorporating it into the campaign agenda for his re-election bid in 2027. Not because it is political ly nature but it is a noble thing to do to give a critical region a sense of belonging.
I have no doubt that the activation of the policy will accelerate the healing of the civil war wounds as the initiative would charm most lgbo people and endear them to Tinubu, as the lgbos by all intents and purposes appear to be willing to forgive and forget the past injustice if all the correct forces align.
■ Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, an alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, a Commonwealth Institute scholar, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos.
