Germany can offer more
TOM K. ALWEENDO
I rise to contribute to this important debate on the draft Joint Declaration between the Republic of Namibia and the Federal Republic of Germany on genocide. Without a doubt, we are debating one of the most important national issues in the history of independent Namibia.
It was common practice in the 19th century, for Europeans to wantonly declare that a particular geographical area on the African continent belongs to them. It was therefore not a surprise when in 1884 during “the scramble for Africa” conference that present day Namibia was declared part of the imperial German empire. The Germans began to impose draconian policies and measures, including land dispossession from the local inhabitants as well as instituting laws that served to undermine and oppress the local population.
With time the Germans became ever more brutal in their oppression. As it was to be expected, the OvaHerero and Nama communities did not take this oppression lightly. They started to resist the oppression and resolved to fight back to defend themselves, their cultures and human dignity. On the 2nd October 1904, at Ozombu zo Vindimba, Von Trotha issued his extermination order against the OvaHerero. He said “Within the German borders every Herero, whether armed or unarmed, with or without cattle, will be shot. I shall not accept any more women or children. I shall drive them back to their people - otherwise I shall order shots to be fired at them".
Similarly, another extermination order was again issued by Von Trotha on the 23rd April 1905 at Gibeon against the Nama community. He said, “I announce this to you and add that those refusing to surrender will suffer the same fate as that suffered by the Herero people.”
As a result of these two extermination orders, by March 1907 most of the OvaHerero and Nama communities as they had existed before were destroyed. Between 80 percent of the OvaHerero were exterminated, while about 60 percent of the Namas suffered the same fate at the hands of the German Imperial troops. What the German Imperial troops did was indeed a wicked act perpetrated by murderous people.
This barbaric act was committed more than 100 years ago, however its impact is still being felt not only by the OvaHerero and Namas but across the length and breadth of Namibia. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us and our responsibility to see to it that justice is done and ensure that Germany accounts for what their ancestors did. In this respect, it is befitting that we pay tribute to those sons and daughters of Namibia who stood up and demanded that Germany accounts for the atrocities it committed against the Namibians of yesteryears.
I especially want to single out the late Hon. Chief Kuaima Riruako – may his soul continue to be at peace – who was relentless and tabled a Motion in this August House in 2006. The Motion demanded that Germany accepts that it committed genocide in Namibia and that it pays reparation. Since then, several attempts were made to get Germany to the negotiation table.
Although Von Trotha’s extermination orders were directed at the OvaHerero and Namas, this is a matter of national interest, deserving our collective attention. As Namibians, we need to act as a community and recognize the fact that we have a moral rights and duties towards each other.
It’s inevitable that in the Namibian history, we all have different experiences that brought us immense pain, that inflicted deep wounds and scars on us, across the timeline of the colonial project and the enslavement of our people. It is said that the worst wounds, the deadliest of them all, are not the ones people see on the outside. It is the invisible ones that make us bleed internally. Therefore, although the wounds and scars of the genocide may no longer be visible, we know that the pain lingers on. So, to the descendants of the genocide, know that you are not in this alone, because your pain is our pain too. We are in this together.
I am, however, troubled by how the conversation has gone thus far. It is now so apparent that the debate has become so divisive, and at times becoming mudslinging. We call each other names. We refer to each other as puppets and sell-outs.
I am afraid that should we continue with this path, then the legacy left by the divide and rule philosophy will continue to flourish. The us and them will thrive. As a nation we have had difficult conversations before, and we will have them again going forward. What we have today is one of those difficult conversations. Let us make use of this opportunity presented to us to forge strong alliances beyond our tribal boundaries. Let us use this sad reality to refuel our resolve to unite and our quest for nationhood.
What is that we demanded from Germany through the negotiation? We demanded three things – that Germany accepts that it committed genocide; that they apologise; and that they pay reparation. Our negotiation team ably led by the late Ambassador Zed Ngavirue – may his soul rest in peace - achieved all three demands we put on the table. The German government accepted that what happened in 1904 was indeed a genocide; they agreed to apologize; and they agreed to pay reparation.
Having followed our debate in this august House, it is my sense that most of us agree that our first two demands have been met to some degree of satisfaction. However, most of us, if not all of us, are not satisfied with our third demand – that of reparation. None of us are satisfied with the level of reparation that Germany is prepared to pay. We believe that, although one can never fully compensate for lives lost, an amount of Euro1.1 billion is woefully too insignificant and not commensurate with the act of genocide that was committed.
Not only is the amount not commensurate with the offences committed, but it is also to be made available over an inordinate long time period of 30 years – disregarding the time value of money. We are of the view that Germany can offer more. We think that Germany treated us with disdain in this respect. That being the case, Hon. Speaker, the question then is what do we do next? How do we proceed? There are those who strongly feel that the way to proceed is to reject the Declaration in its totality and restart the negotiation with Germany.
The sincerity and probity of those who are arguing to reject the Declaration is not lost on me. However, rejecting the Declaration may ease our anguish we are feeling right now but may not put us in any better position to reach a better deal for our people.
I will therefore argue that instead of us rejecting the Declaration in its totality, it makes better sense for us to re-engage Germany to reconsider their position on the quantum of the reparation. While taking the re-engagement route, let us do so pragmatically and with the awareness that, at times, the promise of less is preferable to the possibility of more.
Given the significance of the debate, it will be naïve of me to expect that we all will agree on every aspect of the debate. It is inevitable that we will have different positions, for example, on how to proceed. However, just because we differ on how to proceed, as Members of this august House, we cannot be debating as if we are adversaries; we are not the antagonists here. Our collective adversary is Germany. It is Germany that must atone.
It must therefore be our desire to emerge from this debate as Namibians and not as the affected and non-affected communities. Whatever position I take, the position you take, on how to proceed, must not be informed by being a descendant of the genocide victims or not. The position I take must be informed by what I view to be the best possible outcome, especially given the facts we have at hand. After all, as a Nation we are much stronger when we act together.
“United we stand, divided we fall.”
I rise to contribute to this important debate on the draft Joint Declaration between the Republic of Namibia and the Federal Republic of Germany on genocide. Without a doubt, we are debating one of the most important national issues in the history of independent Namibia.
It was common practice in the 19th century, for Europeans to wantonly declare that a particular geographical area on the African continent belongs to them. It was therefore not a surprise when in 1884 during “the scramble for Africa” conference that present day Namibia was declared part of the imperial German empire. The Germans began to impose draconian policies and measures, including land dispossession from the local inhabitants as well as instituting laws that served to undermine and oppress the local population.
With time the Germans became ever more brutal in their oppression. As it was to be expected, the OvaHerero and Nama communities did not take this oppression lightly. They started to resist the oppression and resolved to fight back to defend themselves, their cultures and human dignity. On the 2nd October 1904, at Ozombu zo Vindimba, Von Trotha issued his extermination order against the OvaHerero. He said “Within the German borders every Herero, whether armed or unarmed, with or without cattle, will be shot. I shall not accept any more women or children. I shall drive them back to their people - otherwise I shall order shots to be fired at them".
Similarly, another extermination order was again issued by Von Trotha on the 23rd April 1905 at Gibeon against the Nama community. He said, “I announce this to you and add that those refusing to surrender will suffer the same fate as that suffered by the Herero people.”
As a result of these two extermination orders, by March 1907 most of the OvaHerero and Nama communities as they had existed before were destroyed. Between 80 percent of the OvaHerero were exterminated, while about 60 percent of the Namas suffered the same fate at the hands of the German Imperial troops. What the German Imperial troops did was indeed a wicked act perpetrated by murderous people.
This barbaric act was committed more than 100 years ago, however its impact is still being felt not only by the OvaHerero and Namas but across the length and breadth of Namibia. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us and our responsibility to see to it that justice is done and ensure that Germany accounts for what their ancestors did. In this respect, it is befitting that we pay tribute to those sons and daughters of Namibia who stood up and demanded that Germany accounts for the atrocities it committed against the Namibians of yesteryears.
I especially want to single out the late Hon. Chief Kuaima Riruako – may his soul continue to be at peace – who was relentless and tabled a Motion in this August House in 2006. The Motion demanded that Germany accepts that it committed genocide in Namibia and that it pays reparation. Since then, several attempts were made to get Germany to the negotiation table.
Although Von Trotha’s extermination orders were directed at the OvaHerero and Namas, this is a matter of national interest, deserving our collective attention. As Namibians, we need to act as a community and recognize the fact that we have a moral rights and duties towards each other.
It’s inevitable that in the Namibian history, we all have different experiences that brought us immense pain, that inflicted deep wounds and scars on us, across the timeline of the colonial project and the enslavement of our people. It is said that the worst wounds, the deadliest of them all, are not the ones people see on the outside. It is the invisible ones that make us bleed internally. Therefore, although the wounds and scars of the genocide may no longer be visible, we know that the pain lingers on. So, to the descendants of the genocide, know that you are not in this alone, because your pain is our pain too. We are in this together.
I am, however, troubled by how the conversation has gone thus far. It is now so apparent that the debate has become so divisive, and at times becoming mudslinging. We call each other names. We refer to each other as puppets and sell-outs.
I am afraid that should we continue with this path, then the legacy left by the divide and rule philosophy will continue to flourish. The us and them will thrive. As a nation we have had difficult conversations before, and we will have them again going forward. What we have today is one of those difficult conversations. Let us make use of this opportunity presented to us to forge strong alliances beyond our tribal boundaries. Let us use this sad reality to refuel our resolve to unite and our quest for nationhood.
What is that we demanded from Germany through the negotiation? We demanded three things – that Germany accepts that it committed genocide; that they apologise; and that they pay reparation. Our negotiation team ably led by the late Ambassador Zed Ngavirue – may his soul rest in peace - achieved all three demands we put on the table. The German government accepted that what happened in 1904 was indeed a genocide; they agreed to apologize; and they agreed to pay reparation.
Having followed our debate in this august House, it is my sense that most of us agree that our first two demands have been met to some degree of satisfaction. However, most of us, if not all of us, are not satisfied with our third demand – that of reparation. None of us are satisfied with the level of reparation that Germany is prepared to pay. We believe that, although one can never fully compensate for lives lost, an amount of Euro1.1 billion is woefully too insignificant and not commensurate with the act of genocide that was committed.
Not only is the amount not commensurate with the offences committed, but it is also to be made available over an inordinate long time period of 30 years – disregarding the time value of money. We are of the view that Germany can offer more. We think that Germany treated us with disdain in this respect. That being the case, Hon. Speaker, the question then is what do we do next? How do we proceed? There are those who strongly feel that the way to proceed is to reject the Declaration in its totality and restart the negotiation with Germany.
The sincerity and probity of those who are arguing to reject the Declaration is not lost on me. However, rejecting the Declaration may ease our anguish we are feeling right now but may not put us in any better position to reach a better deal for our people.
I will therefore argue that instead of us rejecting the Declaration in its totality, it makes better sense for us to re-engage Germany to reconsider their position on the quantum of the reparation. While taking the re-engagement route, let us do so pragmatically and with the awareness that, at times, the promise of less is preferable to the possibility of more.
Given the significance of the debate, it will be naïve of me to expect that we all will agree on every aspect of the debate. It is inevitable that we will have different positions, for example, on how to proceed. However, just because we differ on how to proceed, as Members of this august House, we cannot be debating as if we are adversaries; we are not the antagonists here. Our collective adversary is Germany. It is Germany that must atone.
It must therefore be our desire to emerge from this debate as Namibians and not as the affected and non-affected communities. Whatever position I take, the position you take, on how to proceed, must not be informed by being a descendant of the genocide victims or not. The position I take must be informed by what I view to be the best possible outcome, especially given the facts we have at hand. After all, as a Nation we are much stronger when we act together.
“United we stand, divided we fall.”
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article