Britain washes its hands of ‘Zambesia’
The British High Commission in Namibia says it will not engage in a debate on the historic status of the Zambezi Region in northern Namibia, since it is a matter for the governments and people of the countries involved.
The British High Commissioner to Namibia, Jo Lomas, wrote that the United Kingdom cannot interfere in this matter.
She said according to a decision of the Organisation of African Union (OAU), which was accepted by the African Union (AU), boundaries inherited at Namibia’s independence will be respected.
“Notwithstanding any previous arrangements, Namibia achieved independence with its current borders, and those are the borders recognised by the AU and under international law,” Lomas wrote in a letter on 17 March.
She said she considered the matter closed as it was not an issue on which the British High Commission could engage in further.
Lomas was responding to several letters sent by Ben Siyambango Nzenhengwa of the ‘Movement for the Survival of the River Races in Zambesia’. He argued that Namibia cannot lay claim to the Zambezi Region because it was never within the boundaries of this country under the colonial regime of German South West Africa (GSWA), but in fact fell in the British sphere of influence.
Nzenhengwa further argued that the Recognition of Independence of Namibia Act 1990 provides that independence was granted to a “territory” referred to in the Treaty of Peace and South West African Mandate Act 1919.
He said this act clearly stipulates that the Union of South Africa was granted a League of Nations mandate only in respect of a territory which formerly constituted the German SWA protectorate, which excluded the Zambezi Region, or Caprivi Strip as it was known then.
“The British cannot close a case that we have just started talking about,” Nzenhengwa said of Lomas’s letter. “What should be borne in mind is that the colonial boundaries have remained the same to date. What have changed over a period of time are vested interests and administrative arrangements.”
He added that Great Britain as the last colonial power in Southern Africa should have adhered to Article 22 of the League of Nations over the western part of Zambesia, a country he said was also formerly known as Sebitwane and Makololo country, instead of carrying out decisions that are beyond its powers. Nzenhengwa said the British “violated” the boundaries which were established at the Berlin Conference by giving the so-called Zambesia away to other countries.
“You cannot give away something which does not belong to you,” he said.
“Regrettably Zambesia will only be free if efforts to tackle mass ignorance are undertaken in the region but for now Great Britain remains an elusive perpetrator and author of a messy boundary regime in Southern Africa.”
CATHERINE SASMAN
The British High Commissioner to Namibia, Jo Lomas, wrote that the United Kingdom cannot interfere in this matter.
She said according to a decision of the Organisation of African Union (OAU), which was accepted by the African Union (AU), boundaries inherited at Namibia’s independence will be respected.
“Notwithstanding any previous arrangements, Namibia achieved independence with its current borders, and those are the borders recognised by the AU and under international law,” Lomas wrote in a letter on 17 March.
She said she considered the matter closed as it was not an issue on which the British High Commission could engage in further.
Lomas was responding to several letters sent by Ben Siyambango Nzenhengwa of the ‘Movement for the Survival of the River Races in Zambesia’. He argued that Namibia cannot lay claim to the Zambezi Region because it was never within the boundaries of this country under the colonial regime of German South West Africa (GSWA), but in fact fell in the British sphere of influence.
Nzenhengwa further argued that the Recognition of Independence of Namibia Act 1990 provides that independence was granted to a “territory” referred to in the Treaty of Peace and South West African Mandate Act 1919.
He said this act clearly stipulates that the Union of South Africa was granted a League of Nations mandate only in respect of a territory which formerly constituted the German SWA protectorate, which excluded the Zambezi Region, or Caprivi Strip as it was known then.
“The British cannot close a case that we have just started talking about,” Nzenhengwa said of Lomas’s letter. “What should be borne in mind is that the colonial boundaries have remained the same to date. What have changed over a period of time are vested interests and administrative arrangements.”
He added that Great Britain as the last colonial power in Southern Africa should have adhered to Article 22 of the League of Nations over the western part of Zambesia, a country he said was also formerly known as Sebitwane and Makololo country, instead of carrying out decisions that are beyond its powers. Nzenhengwa said the British “violated” the boundaries which were established at the Berlin Conference by giving the so-called Zambesia away to other countries.
“You cannot give away something which does not belong to you,” he said.
“Regrettably Zambesia will only be free if efforts to tackle mass ignorance are undertaken in the region but for now Great Britain remains an elusive perpetrator and author of a messy boundary regime in Southern Africa.”
CATHERINE SASMAN
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article