A carrot is not justice

The suggestion that Namibia could be losing hundreds of millions of Namibian dollars annually because the German-Namibian genocide negotiations remain unresolved should make us question the very terms of this debate. Since when did justice become an economic opportunity that a country should be persuaded not to miss? And why are the descendants of those who endured extermination, dispossession and the destruction of their societies being made to feel that their insistence on justice is an obstacle to national development?The problem with this framing is that it shifts the conversation from Germany's historical responsibility to Namibia's supposed economic losses. It subtly transforms the victims into the problem and the failure to conclude an inadequate agreement into a missed development opportunity. This is an inversion of responsibility that should not go unchallenged. Reparations are not foreign aid, development assistance or an act of generosity. They arise from an obligation to address historical wrongdoing and its continuing consequences. They cannot be offered as a carrot in exchange for political compliance.The German genocide against the Nama and Ovaherero was a deliberate campaign of extermination, dispossession and destruction. It took lives, land, livelihoods and the political autonomy of entire communities. Human remains and cultural property were removed and transported to Germany, while the economic foundations of colonial domination were built on the territories and resources taken from Indigenous people. These consequences did not end with the cessation of military violence or Namibia's independence.What is particularly disturbing is that the colonial gaze has not disappeared. It continues to surface in the language and attitudes of those who seem unable to engage with the descendants of genocide outside the inherited assumptions of colonial superiority. Some German voices still presume to lecture us about what constitutes a reasonable settlement, what they should accept and when they should consider the matter resolved. The vocabulary may now be that of partnership, development and pragmatism, but the underlying white gaze is uncomfortably familiar.German-speaking NamibiansThis attitude also has a domestic expression. Sections of the German-speaking Namibian community have yet to confront the extent to which their inherited social and economic position is connected to the colonial dispossession of Nama and Ovaherero people. Political independence did not erase the privileges accumulated through colonial rule, nor did it automatically dismantle the structures that continue to reproduce them. Yet there remains a troubling reluctance among some to step outside the historical narratives cultivated within the German settler community, narratives that soften colonial violence, minimise dispossession and portray those demanding restitution as unreasonable, disruptive or unwilling to move forward.For those who inherited the benefits of colonialism to genuinely step outside that narrative for a moment would mean attempting to understand this history from the position of those who experienced extermination, forced labour, servitude and the loss of their ancestral territories. It would mean recognising that what may be remembered within settler families as a story of establishment, hard work and prosperity exists alongside another history: one of land taken, lives destroyed and communities forced into subordination. These histories cannot be reconciled by insisting that the descendants of the dispossessed should simply accept the version that makes the beneficiaries of colonialism most comfortable.Perhaps what is most difficult for some to accept is that we refuse to occupy the position they seem to have reserved for us: the grateful beneficiaries of their generosity, the compliant recipients of development assistance and the obedient subjects who should be satisfied with whatever is offered. We have inherited the consequences of colonial violence, but we have not inherited an obligation to remain subordinate. We are not slaves nor servants, nor will we become grateful beneficiaries of an arrangement that continues to deny us the full exercise of our rights. Our determination to reclaim our dignity is not an expression of ingratitude. It is the refusal to accept that our humanity and future must remain subject to the approval of those who inherited the advantages of our dispossession.Racist colonial orderIt is truly a shame that the heirs of a racist colonial order should presume to dictate what the descendants of its victims should or should not demand. Those who benefited from a system that denied us our humanity cannot now appoint themselves the arbiters of how much justice we deserve. German-speaking Namibians who wish to participate in building a genuinely democratic society must be prepared to peel away the arrogance of inherited entitlement and approach this history with humility. This is not a demand that individuals inherit personal guilt for crimes committed before their birth. It is a demand that they acknowledge the historical structures from which inherited advantages emerged and accept the responsibility that comes with living in a society still struggling with their consequences.The urgency of this debate is reinforced by what is happening to Namibia's land and resources today. Green hydrogen, oil and gas, uranium, copper and other strategic resources are attracting enormous economic interest. Once again, territories historically inhabited and controlled by Nama communities are being presented as economic frontiers, with promises of investment, employment, infrastructure and national prosperity. Yet the fundamental questions remain: who controls the land, who makes decisions about its future, who owns the resources and who captures the value created from them?For communities whose ancestral territories were taken through colonial violence, these are not abstract economic questions. They concern the right to determine their own future. A people cannot be dispossessed of their land and then offered employment on that same territory as evidence that development has arrived. Nor can consultation be presented as a substitute for free, prior and informed consent. Indigenous communities are rights holders, not convenient beneficiaries.There is also an uncomfortable contradiction in Germany's contemporary relationship with Namibia. Germany has a historical responsibility arising from its colonial genocide, yet it also has strategic economic interests in Namibia's emerging resource and energy economy. There is nothing inherently wrong with international economic cooperation, but such cooperation cannot be allowed to reproduce the inequalities of the past.Economic opportunity or historical justiceThere is a political danger in presenting the stalled negotiations as a choice between economic opportunity and historical justice. It creates the impression that those demanding meaningful reparations are standing in the way of Namibia's development. This is a familiar colonial manoeuvre: place the immediate material needs of a people against their legitimate historical claims and then suggest that they are unreasonable for refusing to choose. We should recognise this false choice for what it is.Our own government must also be reminded that the affected communities are not incidental to these negotiations. Any process claiming to address genocide must take seriously the voices, rights and expectations of those whose ancestors experienced it. We must also resist the temptation to measure justice by the amount of money placed on the table. Financial resources matter, particularly in addressing the material inequalities created by colonialism, but they cannot independently restore ancestral relationships with the land, return murdered ancestors to their resting places or repair the destruction of cultural and political institutions.There is a profound Nama understanding that the dead are not separated from the living. They remain present in the land, in our ancestral memory, in the places where they lived and died, and in the responsibilities carried by succeeding generations.This is why we cannot allow the pursuit of economic opportunity to become an excuse for abandoning the struggle for justice. We know what was taken. We understand how the colonial order was constructed, and we can see where its consequences continue to surface in contemporary Namibia. We are not asking others to define our history for us, nor are we waiting for permission to articulate what justice should mean. We have our own voices, our own historical memory, our own institutions and our own agency.Germany must confront its responsibility without attempting to purchase an easy reconciliation. German-speaking Namibians must confront the inherited narratives and privileges that continue to shape their relationship with the country's colonial past. And our government must understand that concluding negotiations is not an achievement if the result leaves the fundamental claims of affected communities unresolved.We have no obligation to become grateful recipients of a system that has never fully relinquished its colonial foundations. We will not exchange our ancestral claims for temporary economic relief, nor will we allow those who inherited the advantages of colonialism to determine the limits of our aspirations. A carrot may provide temporary relief, but it cannot restore a homeland, return a murdered ancestor or undo generations of dispossession.We are not asking for permission to reclaim our dignity. We are asserting a right that was never theirs to take away. A carrot is not justice, and our dignity is not for sale.* Sima Luipert is a descendant of the Nama and Ovaherero genocide and a staunch advocate for restorative justice, genocide atonement, apology and reparations.

A carrot is not justice

Comments

Namibian Sun 2026-11-16

Please login to leave a comment

A carrot is not justice

Comments

Namibian Sun 2026-11-16

Please login to leave a comment

Subscription Required to Access Content ×

Login

Subscription Required to Access Content