Saboteur Day: Will “South East Politicians” Ever Get Quisling Treatments For Aiding Enemy Occupying Forces When Biafra Is Restored?
By Ralph Tathagata
I have never minced my words in stating that south east Nigeria, a substantial part of Biafra territory is being occupied by the Fulani jihadist forces. The simplest way to prove this point is to cite a recent report by Intersociety which revealed that 80% of Nigeria’s security forces is stationed in the south east, while a paltry 20% is shared among other geopolitical zones.
What’s more, of all the governors in the so-called 6 geopolitical zones, south east governors and politicians have the most horrendous record of engaging their own people, particularly members (real or perceived) of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) in savage internecine warfare. There is no point chronicling their heinous crime, because details of the fundamental atrocities they have been dispensing on the people they are constitutionally mandated to protect are in public domain.
Let’s go down memory lane just to remind ourselves that collaborators have always been with humanity. I used the word quisling long before I discovered its etymology. The term originated in Norway, and is used in Scandinavian languages and in English for a person who collaborates with an enemy occupying force, or more generally as a synonym for traitor.
Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian politician and army officer whose collaboration with the Germans in their occupation of Norway during World War II established his name as a synonym for “traitor”.
According to the Britannica, Quisling entered the army in 1911 and served as military attaché in Petrograd (St. Petersburg; 1918–19) and in Helsinki (1919–21). He assisted in relief work in Russia under the famous Arctic explorer and humanitarian Fridtj of Nansen and later for the League of Nations. As minister of defense in an agrarian government (1931–33), he gained notoriety for repressing a strike by hydroelectrical workers. He resigned from the government in 1933 to form the fascist Nasjonal Samling (National Union) Party, which stood for suppression of Communism and unionism, but he never gained a seat in the Storting (parliament).
According to an AP news report, Quisling led the tiny National Union Party when Nazi troops invaded Norway on April 9, 1940. The next day, he seized power, even though his party had never won a seat in Parliament.
Within weeks, his name became a synonym for “traitor″, probably because the London Times’ correspondent in Sweden began to use “quisling″ “to quisle″ and “a quisler″ to describe treason.
In 1995, the Oslo newspaper Verdens Gang published what it said really happened the day Norway’s most infamous man was shot on Oct. 24, 1945.
“It is not true, as rumors have it, that he shook the hands of each member of the firing squad. It is also not true that some of the rifles were loaded with blanks,″ Kjell Juell, commander of Quisling’s guards, told Verdens Gang.
Quisling had ordered dozens of anti-Nazi Norwegian partisans executed, even refusing his own cousin’s plea for clemency. The 10-member firing squad was equally deaf to pleas of innocence when they shot Quisling, at age 58.
“It went very quickly and there was no waiting,″ Juell told the newspaper.
For five years, Quisling and his party, closely related to Germany’s Nazis and Italy’s fascists, had served Hitler in a brutal occupation of Norway.
In 1939, Quisling secretly met Hitler in Berlin ask for help in putting his National Union party in power in still-neutral Norway. Hitler refused.
But when German troops invaded Norway, Quisling grabbed power anyway. The Germans initially forced him out, but later reinstated him hoping for a puppet leader.
The war ended on May 8, 1945, and the next day, Norwegian loyalists arrested Quisling and his aides for treason, an act that he said surprised him.
“I have in all my thoughts and deeds been led by a love for the Norwegian people,″ Quisling said during his trial. His appeals were rejected. He was sentenced to death, a punishment Norway had not used since 1876.
Hours before his execution, Quisling cut off a lock of his hair and left it with a letter for his wife: “Maria, I love you until death and beyond death.″
At 2:30 a.m., Juell’s squad brought the prisoner, dressed in a white sweater and gray knickerbockers, to the grounds of the ancient Akershus castle in downtown Oslo.
A doctor pinned a white target over Quisling’s heart. He was blindfolded and bound to a temporary wooden wall.
“I have been judged unfairly. I die innocent,″ Juell recalled Quisling’s last words.
Another member of the firing squad, whose name was not given, said his hatred for Quisling hadn’t eased in 50 years.
“Considering the suffering that man had caused the Norwegian people, I would have done the same thing again,″ the old soldier told the newspaper.
I can categorically state that same way Norwegian people felt about Quisling 76 years ago, is exactly, if not more, how millions of Biafran people feel towards Igbo politicians and their e-rats right now.
Conservatively, if Biafra is restored now and if arrest, prosecution and prison sentences are to be handed down for collaborationist offences, the new nation may be the highest in the entire Africa if not the world. Granted, a number of freeborn and well-meaning Biafrans are fighting on all fronts to make sure that an inch of our ancestral land is not ceded to Sahelian invaders, the rank of saboteurs keeps swelling by the day.
Collaboration/sabotage is a widely used term in conflict research, but not often defined. Expert opinion regarding the psychological functioning of saboteurs has not yet taken the shape of a generally accepted formulation. It may be of interest to note that, while some psychologists have often attributed collaborationist tendencies to childhood factors, such interpretation (which is quite exculpating) has never held water in legal proceedings anywhere in the world. Moreover, psychological explanation can only be confined to one individual at a time.
I, however, use collaborator/Saboteur in this short piece to mean a person (within or outside south east Nigeria) who supports enemy occupying forces voluntarily.
Individuals develop attitudes toward collaborators based on their actions, which inform perceptions of their culpability and preferences for punishment. I am a firm believer that public opinion should never be the sole basis for the design of justice policies because of the risk of “mob justice”.
Thus, when Biafra is restored, there will be a real need for safeguards to ensure that justice processes protect the fundamental rights of perpetrators, including the right to due process in trials, and that these processes are acceptable to the new society at-large. Therefore when Biafra is finally restored, it is the justice mechanism put in place and not public attitudes that will determine the culpability, reconciliation or retribution of suspected enemy collaborators.
By the way Norway just concluded its elections yesterday in the most civilized fashion? Norwegians are now waiting for a new government to take over.
Don’t also forget that the Biafra National Anthem (1967 -1970) was set to the tune of “Finlandia” by Sibelius the Finnish composer. The tone poem “Finlandia” was the piece that got Sibelius noticed. It was effectively a nationalistic call for Russia to keep its hands off Finland, one of the most successful Scandinavian countries. It goes to prove that Biafra has always been modeled after the best and the brightest.
Suffice it to say that Norway, Finland, Switzerland amongst other civilized nations is some of the shining examples of what Biafra would look like.