Mapping the road to reparations

? As Namibia’s special envoy on the genocide issue, give us a brief background of what your approach was from the start.
ZN: The first thing was to familiarise myself with what was going on. The most important thing was to know that government took up this case with the Federal Republic of Germany on the basis of the motion adopted by our parliament. I decided to read that whole record, including the debate in parliament that culminated in the decision of our parliament to take up with the German government the genocide, the apology and reparations.

? What has been done thus far and what does the process of engaging the German government entail?
ZN: When the two envoys were appointed, my counterpart phoned and he was very keen to first of all come and familiarise himself with the conditions in this country, because he had never been to Namibia before. He was particularly interested in the last battles of Waterberg. He was also interested in the vocational centre in Okakarara, and met the regional councillor. At the time it was clearly understood we would not start with the negotiations until we have prepared our case and get a mandate.

? Describe that mandate and the process of getting there.
ZN: Basically it was important for us to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt the facts that showed that German troops in this country under Von Trotha did commit genocide and were clearly war criminals. That starts with recording what actually happened. It was not only war crimes. We also know the Germans, under the Kaiser, ordered that the OvaHerero have no land and no cattle. Then we had the case of concentration camps, in which people were forced to do slave labour. Communities were displaced in the diaspora to Botswana and South Africa. That is for instance, why we established a technical committee working on these issues. It has subcommittees, one on research and documentation, and an economist charged with the idea of giving as an assessment of the actual losses that we suffered. We also have legal experts, who are well versed on the UN Convention on Genocide. We also made it possible to at least capture the feelings and the wishes of the affected communities.

? The term ‘affected communities’ remains contentious. Who would you describe as the affected communities?
ZN: Well, the affected communities, that’s a broad definition. This is a case of genocide; the people who were targeted were the OvaHerero and the Nama. But we are also aware that there were others communities that suffered - the Damara and San. Some were collateral damage, but they also ended up suffering. We also know that because of the friendship that existed, especially between a section of the OvaHerero and the Ondonga people, that King Nehale sent 500 forces when they attacked.

? A major criticism is that demands by other communities aren’t a case of genocide, as the aim was not to exterminate them. Are their losses a different fight or is it intersectional?
ZN: In my terms of reference, it is clear we had a case of genocide against the OvaHerero and Nama, but we know that other people have suffered and their suffering cannot be ignored. That is the position of our government at the moment. The Germans also understand that on their side, the case of genocide that can be proven is against the OvaHerero and Nama. As you know, the resolution in parliament was unanimous. It includes those who suffered, not necessarily just those who were targeted.

? Namibia’s ambassador to Germany recently attracted criticism for requesting German opposition parties to withdraw a Bundestag motion on the genocide. Was this criticism fair and was he acting on your or government’s instruction?
ZN: The ambassador took his innovative approach in his capacity to try and build consensus in Germany. Unfortunately that attempt was not successful. At the time he spoke to German political parties, he thought he could get consensus, it was an attempt, an initiative as an ambassador. There was nothing wrong with that.

? The Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation has allocated N$10 million as a budget for the ongoing genocide talks. Give us a brief breakdown on how the money is being used?
ZN: Basically in the ministry, the person who must account for finances is the permanent secretary, as the accounting officer. That kind of question should be directed to the permanent secretary and the chairperson of the technical committee. From my position, the needs involve research, travel and consultancy services.

? OvaHerero and Nama leaders have accused government of sidelining them in the ongoing talks and that they have deliberately excluded them from direct and substantive discussions. What are your thoughts on that accusation?
ZN: That’s a real misunderstanding. As you very well know, the president did invite representative of these communities. There were some people who came. To put it like the OvaHerero and Nama leaders do, accusing government, is incorrect. Some accused and some did kick themselves off the platforms. Government invited those who agreed and accepted the process as is. Government did say they can send participants to the technical committee. The chiefs wanted to be abreast of the developments and they suggested for a forum to be established. The vice-president approved that. One thing the media and everyone should be aware of is when the president invited those committees that were not involved, the person that came to represent the Namas, was Honourable Ida Hoffman. We don’t know what she went to tell her people. She did say to the president that she was going to consult but I don’t know what the consultation was. When those people stayed away, obviously we thought that they had taken the position that Ida Hoffman had taken at that time. The statement was simply it can’t be about us without us. If it is about us without us it is against us. They stayed out. Whether it was the position of all those that she represented I don’t know. I heard now of an association representing the Namas.

? What is the difference between the technical committee and the political committee, and what do their roles entail?
ZN: The technical committee is a Cabinet committee. It consists of Cabinet ministers, as the whole Cabinet cannot work on the issue of the genocide, the apology and reparations. The political committee is chaired by the vice-president. The political committee lays down policy and gives directions to the technical committee. That is the government acting on behalf of the victims, as requested in the parliament motion, basically to implement that motion.

? The idea government is acting through the parliamentary resolution is also very contentious these days, with Nama and OvaHerero leaders saying that the way it’s done now wasn’t the initial motion, as tabled by the late Chief Riruako some years ago. Some are saying it wasn’t about government to act on behalf of the people, but about recognising that it is a legitimate cause and a legitimate fight, and that government should sort of mediate.
ZN: I have seen the documents. The motion asked parliament to debate, and also to present the case on behalf of the victims. Those details need perhaps to be gone into. The most important point is that the government carried out the instructions to approach the German government on this issue, and it is the government of Germany that came up with the proposal that the dialogue will start with two people. It is not a proposal that came from our government. Now it’s for the people to decide to accept or say ‘no, unless the victims are there we will not accept’. They talk as if the government decided they should not participate, when everyone knows it is the German government that refused to negotiate directly with the communities.

? If you look at the kind of conversations Nama and OvaHerero young people are having, there is a belief that our people already suffered such violent oppression, and today the German government still wants to dictate how conversations about that suffering should take place. Isn’t that oppressive too?
ZN: One thing you have got to understand, international negotiations can always take place at the level of government to government. Even the case of the Jews, it was the State of Israel that signed with the German government, although their people were around when the negotiations took place. But that was around different circumstances. The actual point right now, as that we have a case of government to government negotiations, that’s the position.

? OvaHerero Paramount Chief Vekuii Rukoro recently accused government of trying to hijack the genocide talks “now that the end is in sight”. In the absence of a special envoy and talks between governments, do you think the victims of the genocide would have achieved anything?
ZN: No, it was very clear that our own community tried this in American courts, made representations and the government of Germany declined, and that’s why the late paramount chief asked the government to take up the issue. With regard to the discussions not being public, actual negotiations have not taken place, I first needed to get a mandate. The conduct that led to the special envoys, it was quiet diplomacy between the two governments. Anyone who understands how international negotiations are conducted won’t say this should have been public.

? Rukoro also said that no one knew what was being negotiated by the German and Namibian governments, as everything was being kept under a cloak of secrecy. Is this case?
ZN: No formal negations have taken place. We do not know where they are getting this from. Nothing has happened. My counterpart came, and I said I will wait until I have a formal mandate from my government and my people. There have not been any formal negotiations up to this point.

? When negotiations start, what will be the desirable outcome?
ZN: The objective is for the German government to acknowledge that they have committed genocide, to apologise, and then pay reparations. They use their own term – ‘healing the wounds’ – when we talk of reparations. Those are the things that are going to be negotiated.

? Will the Namibian government accept the terminology ‘healing the wounds’ as opposed to acknowledging the genocide, and referring to restorative justice as reparations?
ZN: When you have negotiations you don’t spell out where you going to end up in accepting or not accepting. Then you are not negotiating.

? So are there any specific demands?
ZN: Our demand is that the government of Germany accepts genocide, that they have committed genocide and that they apologise. And we definitely are interested in reparations. In terms of the question of terminology, the Jews for instance who were the first recipient of reparations, in their agreement the Germans had a different term, and the Jews had their own terms; that is another possibility when you have negotiations of this kind. At this point, we are operating on the basis of the motion of our parliament, but what the final text is going to be, and what we are going to achieve, is basically the result of the success of our negotiations.

? Does any of the desirable outcomes have any kind of restorative justice, specifically for the OvaHerero and Nama communities?
ZN: It is a very important question. Restorative justice can be seen in many ways, like restitution. But as we well know when it comes to the land, our own constitution has ruled out the idea of getting our land back. But it is up to us at this moment as a people to decide. As the situation stands now, restitution of the land is not possible. What are the things that we can do or claim that can help reconstruct our society under those circumstances? The government and the affected communities - the direct victims of genocide - and other people that have suffered really should in a united, fashion sit down and work out the kind of projects that can have meaning. There are several things that we need to think about, say on the economic front, education, on our culture, rebuilding our culture that was disrupted. All those things are things to which we ought to pay serious attention to rather, than all these arguments on who is going to say this or that. We need to work out the kind of things that can have real benefit in the reconstruction of our societies.

? When we speak of reparations, do we speak of the German government supporting the Namibian people through government or do we speak of specific benefits for the OvaHerero and Nama communities?
ZN: Basically, the government itself, and even at a technical committee level, know that there would as of necessity be ways and means of targeting the affected communities. Basically where we are now, you would think of the linkages of the national wellbeing of the nation as a whole, but there is no way in which the government, together with the people themselves, will not target areas and communities who were affected.

? Some have said you were appointed to appease the affected communities, and have made reference to your tribal background. What’s your response to that?
ZN: I was put here not just because I come from OvaHerero-speaking people. But I am a veteran of the Namibian struggle. I was involved in the struggle for my people before I even reached the age of 30 and victimised for that. I was one of the three spokespeople after the shooting of 10 December in Windhoek, and then I went to the United Nations as early as 1961. I appeared as a petitioner four times from the 1960s onwards. When this case for instance started, I was involved with these issues. I made important statements when the skulls arrived. I am part of the people, but also a person involved in the struggle for his country, so it wasn’t a token sort of thing. It was on the basis of the work I have involved myself in.
GORDON JOSEPH