Divisions among genocide descendants are manufactured!

Perceivably, there are divisions among Ovaherero and Nama genocide descendants and their communities over the question of reparations.

Perceivably, because the said divisions are not real. Not only are they not real, but they are not essentially between or among the descendants and their communities. There is no doubt that the descendants and communities of the survivors of the genocide committed against the Ovaherero and Nama by Imperial Germany have been searching and clamouring for reparations.

The division, rather, is between the descendants and their communities on the one hand and the Namibian government on the other.

Reparations, in terms of the United Nations, are defined by basic principles under which they can be assessed and measured, including their level and nature. Remedies and reparations, to qualify as such, must be adequate and effective. For the claimants in the case of the Ovaherero and Nama genocide – the descendants and their communities – such reparations should therefore be adequate and effective. Furthermore, the descendants and their communities should have access to effective justice.

Are the Ovaherero and Nama descendants and their communities differing among themselves on these principles? Are these principles the source of their presumed divisions?

These principles are intended to ensure that any remedies and/or reparations offered to the descendants and their communities are not mere tokens. For the said and/or perceived divisions between and among the Ovaherero and Nama descendants and their communities to be real, they must be based on whether the Joint Declaration (JD) adheres to these principles.

Notwithstanding that the JD is essentially, more than anything, a political undertaking rather than an agreement and/or treaty between the Namibian and German governments, one cannot but emphasise the difference and division between the descendants and their communities on the one hand, and both the Namibian and German governments on the other. The division with the Namibian government is one that should never have existed in the first place.

The 2006 motion of the Namibian National Assembly, which was adopted unanimously, is clear that the Namibian government should have facilitated a dialogue between the descendants and their communities and Germany. This was to be preceded by a national conference of all the descendants to iron out any misunderstandings and, ultimately, prevent the situation that has come to be manufactured today.

Mention must also be made of the entire process leading to the negotiations, about which the descendants and their communities were not consulted. They were invited only to become passive onlookers, relegated, even, to structures with no decision-making powers. The highest of these was the political committee, essentially comprising Cabinet ministers.

Thus, reflecting deeply, thoughtfully and critically on all these issues, one cannot but conclude that there is no division between and among the descendants and their communities, except a superficial and manufactured one.

Since actively taking the initiative to implement the 2006 National Assembly resolution, the government has been paying lip service to it to save face, rather than meaningfully implementing it so that, in the end, it produces meaningful remedies and reparations. What has emerged instead is the tokenism represented by the JD.

The best that the Namibian government has been doing is sowing divisions between and among the descendants and their communities to achieve its own bilateral agenda with Germany.

“Underlining the special nature of German-Namibian relations as stressed by Resolutions of the German Bundestag in 1989 and 2004 confirming a special historical and moral responsibility towards Namibia,” one paragraph of the Joint Declaration well encapsulates this position.

Another paragraph states: “recalling the support for Namibian independence, in particular the implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 (1978) from the two states in Germany in the long Namibian struggle for independence, and from the united Germany to the development of Namibia thereafter.”

These two paragraphs from the JD clearly speak to the relationship between the two countries, and by extension the two governments. This relationship cannot and shall never be overridden or subjugated to the demands of an “insignificant” community – the Ovaherero and Nama – for reparations.

Simply put, German-Namibian bilateral relations and the considerations thereof, as far as the two governments are concerned, have been and continue to be paramount.

Be that as it may, it stands to reason that the descendants and their communities themselves have not created the monster of the perceived divisions among themselves. Rather, they have allowed both the Namibian and German governments to wrestle the issue from them and pretend to drive it, while in reality they have been usurping it towards their own bilateral agenda.

In the final analysis, the perceived divisions are within the power of the descendants and their communities to demystify. They must wrestle the issue back under their control and drive it forward in the way they deem fit.

Africa and the international community are slowly but surely awakening to causes such as that of the Ovaherero and Nama. If the movement for reparations for slavery, which is gaining momentum, is anything to go by, the Ovaherero and Nama genocide is definitely an integral part of this movement.

But it is up to the descendants and their communities to make the call.

• Kae Matundu-Tjiparuro is a descendant of the survivors of the Ovaherero, Ovambanderu and Nama genocide, a veteran and freelance journalist, reparations advocate and adherent of restorative justice.