There Is A Future In Namibia Despite Der Spiegel's Analysis
An open letter from businessman Mannfred Goldbeck and journalist Sven-Eric Kanzler to the weekly news magazine 'Der Spiegel' in Germany.
Re: Article "Kriegstrommeln in Suedwest" ("War Drums in South
West"), Spiegel No 28/2004 Dear Mr Ihlau, We are pleased to see
that you sent a journalist to Namibia to research his story
firsthand.
In the light of pressures on the German advertising market and
widespread retrenchments in editorial offices we do not take it for
granted at all that a magazine like 'Der Spiegel' is willing to
spare no expense in order to gain its own picture of Namibia and
its problems.
On the other hand we are deeply shocked.
As longstanding readers we know and appreciate 'Der
Spiegel'.
We would not have expected to find an article like Thilo
Thielke's "Kriegstrommeln in Suedwest" in this magazine.
We are shocked that the article is one-sided; that 'Der Spiegel'
turns into the mouthpiece of a very small group within the Namibian
population, and that the picture portrayed of the people, the
government and the country does not correspond with reality.
Most of all, however, we are shocked because the article does
not even attempt to understand alleged 'irrational' actions of
individuals or the government.
It seems as if you were neither aware of your responsibility as
a source of information on which more than five million readers
have come to rely, nor of the impact which your report has on
Namibia.
Let us explain.
One-sidedness - On the farm of Andreas Wiese, who is of German
descent, a dead goose-chick causes conflict with the labourers
living on the farm.
The dispute escalates into legal action.
In his article, Mr Thielke fails to mention that farmer Wiese
expels the labourers and their families from the farm, and that
there had already been similar cases of sending labourers off on
other farms as well.
Irrespective of who is to blame or what the court decided, one
surely has to wonder how it was possible for situations to escalate
to such an extent and why people treat each other in this way.
One should think that a journalist would feel compelled to make
both sides heard.
Thielke, however, gives an account of developments and motives
from the farmer's perspective only.
The other side - the labourers and the union - does not feature
at all.
The same is true for his representation of the land reform
process, where only the arguments of critics are brought forward
while the other side is totally ignored.
Furthermore, Thielke fails to point out that there is broad
consensus in Namibia about the necessity of redistributing
land.
Not only President Sam Nujoma and his ruling Swapo (election
1999:76 percent) have been calling for land reform, but also most
of the opposition parties, including the Congress of Democrats
(just under 10 percent) which is not mentioned in your article, and
the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance (9,5 percent) which in your
article is listed as a critic.
Mouthpiece - The incident is recounted from the farmer's
perspective, which grammatically would require the use of the
subjunctive.
However, the indicative mood is used, which elevates the
farmer's view into fact, and his voice is blended with
Thielke's.
In the headline, Thielke's voice turns into that of a small
group of Namibians of German origin:the term "Suedwest" (South
West), without the inverted commas for dissociation, hardly sounds
like the language of an independent journalist.
In today's Namibia this terminology from German colonial times
is mainly used by people with a yearning for those times.
Thielke degrades the obelisk at the memorial site for victims of
the liberation struggle into the President's "memorial
phallus".
And with the clear intention to make the opinion of a marginal
group look like general consensus he adds:"'Nujoma's last
erection', Namibians scoff".
But in contrast to his claim this blunder is not at all making
the shoulder-slapping rounds among all Namibians.
Most of those of German descent would also turn away in
embarrassment.
Journalist Thielke and 'Der Spiegel', however, dedicate a whole
carefully worded paragraph to this gross obscenity, thereby
stooping low enough to become the well-disposed champion of
opinions from the ultra-right corner of the political spectrum.
Wrong picture - Thielke suggests that the land question is
merely used for purposes of electioneering ("elections will soon be
held in Namibia and therefore the government started months ago to
promise the redistribution of land to its people").
He fails to point out that land reform has been going on for
years - on the basis of a law which became effective already in
1995.
Thielke also suggests that the land reform consists of "dividing
agricultural land into small plots which are to be given to
labourers for their use".
This is not the case, of course, as becomes apparent immediately
when taking a closer look at this central aspect of the land
reform:candidates for receiving land are quite generally citizens
of Namibia who do not own any or only unsuitable land and have been
historically disadvantaged.
In very few cases are labourers who live on the farm in question
the recipients.
This discrepancy has been pointed out for years by expert
Wolfgang Werner who is quoted in your article.
Sum total:the ones who suffer as a result of the land reform are
not first and foremost the farmers, who after all are compensated
according to market prices (land and equipment are paid for, other
than in Zimbabwe), but it is the labourers and their families who
in many cases have been born on the farm and not only lose their
home but their daily bread as well.
The composition and linguistics of the article show that Thielke
is a master of his journalistic trade.
In the course of his research he will doubtlessly have stumbled
across this aspect.
We therefore come to the conclusion that he misrepresents it
knowingly.
Especially since he partly contradicts himself in other
places:"In Namibia, too, deserving heroes of the liberation
struggle are to be rewarded with expropriated land - like in
Zimbabwe".
This does not correspond with the facts either.
In the past, veterans themselves have repeatedly demanded jobs,
not land.
Why then spread false information deliberately? Because
otherwise it would have become obvious that the chosen example of
farmer Wiese in fact has nothing to do with the land reform
concept.
This is exactly what critics justly reproach the government with
when they point out that the reasons for the expropriations
currently under discussion are labour disputes instead of the
established criteria for land redistribution.
But Thielke desperately needs the Wiese case for emotionally
biasing the reader against land reform.
This calculation clearly comes through in the manner in which
the beginning and end of the article are composed:the first
sentence ("Farmer Andreas Wiese has lost his home") with the
emotionally charged word "home"; the first paragraph with the
moving description of the moment when farmer Wiese received the
letter of expropriation; and the heartbreaking scene at the end
when farmer Wiese "looks out of the window" to see "his employees
camping on the farm grounds, waiting for him to finally leave".
The grief of farmer Wiese is real and tangible.
Therefore it has to be condemned all the more that this grief is
put into the wrong context and misused for Mr Thielke's own
agenda.
He also misuses the example of farmer Wiese to draw a parallel
between Namibia and Zimbabwe, where the government tolerated the
occupation of 'white' farms by 'blacks' and where farmers were
beleaguered, beaten up or even murdered.
Thielke insists on the parallel even though expert Wolfgang
Werner says that he (Werner) explicitly pointed out him (Thielke)
during their discussions that it cannot be drawn.
Werner also says that when he wanted to give reasons, Thielke
did not want to know any and showed no further interest.
Thus we are not surprised that the disparities with Zimbabwe are
withheld in this article:such as the legal basis of land reform,
implementation according to the rule of law, the prevailing
principle of 'willing seller, willing buyer', and the immediate
intervention of the authorities in cases of attempted farm
occupations.
From this we can only conclude that Mr Thielke came to Namibia
with a preconceived opinion and the firm intention to have it
confirmed - at any cost.
No understanding - Mr Thielke's bias is reflected in the
composition of the article.
He does not discuss findings, he states his ideas.
In order to have the reader follow his opinion he falls back on
a popular rhetorical trick:he ridicules the political adversary,
declares him irrational.
Ridiculous people are not taken seriously and one does not even
have to start taking a closer look at the goals and reasoning of
somebody irrational.
With rough strokes of his pen Thielke cleverly sketches a skewed
picture of President Nujoma.
He mentions, for example, that in Namibian towns "there are
plenty of streets named after Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro and other
heroes of socialist people's wars", and a few lines on he writes of
"old guerrilla Nujoma with his unkempt revolutionary's beard".
Thereby he subliminally lumps Nujoma together with dictators
thirsting for expropriation while living in the past and clinging
onto socialism though it foundered long ago.
It is true that Nujoma and Swapo are loyal to their allies from
the times of the liberation struggle and express gratitude for the
support rendered then also in the (re)naming of streets.
But does somebody live in the past because he did not drop his
old friends like hot potatoes when the tide turned against them?
Above all, Namibia's head of state and government has been elected
democratically - by a majority (almost 77%) of which US presidents
can only dream.
When Namibia became independent in 1990 the ruling party, Swapo,
unequivocally proclaimed its commitment to a free market economy,
the protection of private property is embodied in Namibia's
Constitution.
Wording like "whim of the aged leader" in the article, or
"irrational doings" in the caption, impute that Nujoma suffers from
old-age dementia, resulting in decisions being taken on the spur of
the moment rather than being guided by reason.
The photo of Nujoma shaking the hand of Zimbabwean President
Robert Mugabe is supposed to reinforce Thielke's claim that Mugabe,
who internationally is regarded as being irrational, serves as a
model which Nujoma is trying to imitate.
Thielke fails to note that other African leaders, including
South African President Thabo Mbeki, show solidarity with Mugabe to
the outside world, without adapting his policies for their own
country.
Are all these Africans irrational? Or could it be that their
demonstrative stand is the rational result of centuries of
patronage by Europeans and their policy of divide and rule? Thielke
depicts land reform as a symptom of the madness which he diagnoses
himself.
Thus he starts off on the topic by concluding that "the
government can hardly do anything more insane".
He disguises the fact that this is his own opinion by pretending
that he is quoting expert Wolfgang Werner - who insists that he
never said any such thing.
Indeed, land reform does have its weaknesses, and they have been
the subject of public debate in Namibia for years:such as the
sluggish implementation due to lengthy procedures, distribution to
rich and influential Namibians, the problem of dismissed farm
labourers, insufficient assistance for the new farmers.
None of these points are noted by Thielke.
But he gives ample space to the central argument of critics,
that poverty simply cannot be combated by redistributing farming
areas.
From an economic point of view this argument cannot be
rejected.
However, there is no mention of the legitimate emotional and
political reasons:120 years after Europeans took possession of the
country and 100 years after the expropriation of their forefathers
(mainly Herero and Nama), 'black' Namibians want to have the land
physically at their disposal again.
"But this exactly (to repossess land from whites which was once
stolen) is something the Herero do not really consider an option",
says Thielke, quoting a politician of the opposition, Rudolph
Kamburona, who is an Herero.
Thielke fails to point out, though, that the Ovaherero people do
lay claim to the land of their forefathers.
Therefore it is a thorn in their sides when members of the
Ovambo people are given land in their former settlement area.
Which is understandable.
A group-specific redistribution, on the other hand, would
promote a dangerous tribalism and thereby undermine efforts in
nation building, striving so hard to overcome old barriers.
Thus Herero and Nama do not exclusively benefit from land
distribution, but they also share in it - in their capacity as
citizens of Namibia.
But Thielke, of course, is not aiming at an impartial analysis,
he is aiming at the rhetorical dismantling of the political
adversary, and he does not even stop at racist thought.
The words "war drums", "bush warrior" and "war path" clearly
raise the clichéd picture of a savage beating the drums in
the bush.
Thielke absolutely outdoes himself, though, with his verbal blow
below the belt:the reinterpretation of the memorial obelisk as a
Presidential erection deliberately harps on the prejudiced
preconception of extraordinary black virility which has its origins
in darkest colonial times and still haunts the minds of many
Europeans and Namibians of European origin.
At times President Nujoma's statements have given rise to
criticism.
That, however, is no reason for attempting total demolition.
Thielke's disparaging and racist way of dealing with the
political opponent is a relapse into Apartheid times.
It does not befit a democracy either.
All the more we are shocked that it befits 'Der Spiegel'.
"Nujoma curses 'racist whites'", Thielke notes, shaking his
head.
It is people like Thielke who provoke this reaction.
Namibia is a democracy since gaining independence in 1990.
But as was the case in Germany after the Second World War, many
people still have to adapt democratic manners of dealing with each
other.
We are shocked to find proof in the shape of Mr Thielke that
even after 60 years this process has not yet come to an end.
Responsibility - It is not our intention at all to run down Mr
Thielke in this letter and thereby display the same attitude which
we criticise in him (and some groups in Namibia).
We understand his position as a journalist:in the face of mostly
negative news stories the business produces a protective cynicism
in the long run, the competition of stories for the limited space
in the magazine furthers the lure of overdoing it.
We also understand 'Der Spiegel':competition between the media
requires stories with a drastic get-up and a graphic style.
However, our understanding ends when a story is knowingly
dressed up for panic and strife - at the expense of the people
involved.
There is, after all, a journalistic duty to accuracy and a
responsibility towards more than five million readers in Germany,
Austria and Switzerland - who especially when it comes to reports
about foreign countries rarely have the means to cross-check
information and opinions against own experiences.
Impact in Namibia - The government and the citizens of Namibia
regard 'Der Spiegel' as an important voice from Germany.
Here, therefore, Thielke's article is not simply seen as one of
many but as the Spiegel front page of 2004.
Copies are handed out everywhere.
Many feel offended, many react with shock, some are
rejoicing.
There are people who do not want to see change in Namibia and
pretend that nothing is changing.
And there are people who find it difficult to come to terms with
the changes.
Both groups turn to the past for something to hold onto and as a
point of reference.
This is expressed in phrases like "everything used to be
better... since independence we have taken a turn for the worse...
there is no future in Namibia".
Thielke assumes this very same attitude and indeed sums it up in
his last sentence, "there is no future left in Namibia".
With this he - in contrast to Nujoma - actually confirms the
thinking of those hankering after the past, even though it really
does not have a future in today's Namibia, and must not be allowed
to have one.
This backing is seen as even more significant because 'Der
Spiegel', at least before independence, was associated with the
political opponent, with Swapo.
In those days the magazine criticised the fact that no change
was taking place and heaped the blame on the 'rightist whites'.
The destructive effect on society, when people are encouraged to
keep walking into a dead end, is limited because it is a small
group of people.
But at the same time 'Der Spiegel', with Thielke's article,
antagonises all those 'whites' who do see a future in Namibia, who
strive to work together with 'blacks' and want to contribute
constructively to building the new Namibia.
After decades of discrimination against blacks (in particular on
the farms) bridges of trust have to be put up gently.
Lastly, 'Der Spiegel' lashes out at President Nujoma as well as
the government and thereby three quarters of Namibia's
population.
In doing so, it delivers proof for the prejudice harboured by
these population groups against the 'whites', namely that they
always think they know best or that they are racist anyway.
With this 'Der Spiegel' torpedoes the development and
enlargement of cooperation on an equal level - between Germany and
Namibia as well as between 'white' and 'black' Namibians.
Reaction - In order to counter this destructive effect we will
publish this letter in the local media in German and English.
We will also forward it to media companies and businesses in
Germany, with contacts to Namibia, and to websites with Namibian
content.
Furthermore we hope that you will publish this letter in your
next issue, so that your readers have the opportunity to draw their
own conclusions with regard to Mr Thielke's article.
And lastly we want to ask you to send a journalist to Windhoek
once more in order to replace the one-sided impression with a more
multi-facetted picture of the country.
During two weeks in November Namibians elect a new president, a
new parliament and a new regional council.
We will gladly help you with the cost, with contacts,
appointments and transport.
It takes greatness to admit to a mistake and correct it.
If you prove to have such greatness, our confidence into the
reporting of 'Der Spiegel' will be restored.
Yours truly,
Mannfred Goldbeck
Sven-Eric Kanzler
In the light of pressures on the German advertising market and
widespread retrenchments in editorial offices we do not take it for
granted at all that a magazine like 'Der Spiegel' is willing to
spare no expense in order to gain its own picture of Namibia and
its problems.On the other hand we are deeply shocked.As
longstanding readers we know and appreciate 'Der Spiegel'.We would
not have expected to find an article like Thilo Thielke's
"Kriegstrommeln in Suedwest" in this magazine.We are shocked that
the article is one-sided; that 'Der Spiegel' turns into the
mouthpiece of a very small group within the Namibian population,
and that the picture portrayed of the people, the government and
the country does not correspond with reality.Most of all, however,
we are shocked because the article does not even attempt to
understand alleged 'irrational' actions of individuals or the
government.It seems as if you were neither aware of your
responsibility as a source of information on which more than five
million readers have come to rely, nor of the impact which your
report has on Namibia.Let us explain.One-sidedness - On the farm of
Andreas Wiese, who is of German descent, a dead goose-chick causes
conflict with the labourers living on the farm.The dispute
escalates into legal action.In his article, Mr Thielke fails to
mention that farmer Wiese expels the labourers and their families
from the farm, and that there had already been similar cases of
sending labourers off on other farms as well.Irrespective of who is
to blame or what the court decided, one surely has to wonder how it
was possible for situations to escalate to such an extent and why
people treat each other in this way.One should think that a
journalist would feel compelled to make both sides heard.Thielke,
however, gives an account of developments and motives from the
farmer's perspective only.The other side - the labourers and the
union - does not feature at all.The same is true for his
representation of the land reform process, where only the arguments
of critics are brought forward while the other side is totally
ignored.Furthermore, Thielke fails to point out that there is broad
consensus in Namibia about the necessity of redistributing land.Not
only President Sam Nujoma and his ruling Swapo (election 1999:76
percent) have been calling for land reform, but also most of the
opposition parties, including the Congress of Democrats (just under
10 percent) which is not mentioned in your article, and the
Democratic Turnhalle Alliance (9,5 percent) which in your article
is listed as a critic.Mouthpiece - The incident is recounted from
the farmer's perspective, which grammatically would require the use
of the subjunctive.However, the indicative mood is used, which
elevates the farmer's view into fact, and his voice is blended with
Thielke's.In the headline, Thielke's voice turns into that of a
small group of Namibians of German origin:the term "Suedwest"
(South West), without the inverted commas for dissociation, hardly
sounds like the language of an independent journalist.In today's
Namibia this terminology from German colonial times is mainly used
by people with a yearning for those times.Thielke degrades the
obelisk at the memorial site for victims of the liberation struggle
into the President's "memorial phallus".And with the clear
intention to make the opinion of a marginal group look like general
consensus he adds:"'Nujoma's last erection', Namibians scoff".But
in contrast to his claim this blunder is not at all making the
shoulder-slapping rounds among all Namibians.Most of those of
German descent would also turn away in embarrassment.Journalist
Thielke and 'Der Spiegel', however, dedicate a whole carefully
worded paragraph to this gross obscenity, thereby stooping low
enough to become the well-disposed champion of opinions from the
ultra-right corner of the political spectrum.Wrong picture -
Thielke suggests that the land question is merely used for purposes
of electioneering ("elections will soon be held in Namibia and
therefore the government started months ago to promise the
redistribution of land to its people").He fails to point out that
land reform has been going on for years - on the basis of a law
which became effective already in 1995.Thielke also suggests that
the land reform consists of "dividing agricultural land into small
plots which are to be given to labourers for their use".This is not
the case, of course, as becomes apparent immediately when taking a
closer look at this central aspect of the land reform:candidates
for receiving land are quite generally citizens of Namibia who do
not own any or only unsuitable land and have been historically
disadvantaged.In very few cases are labourers who live on the farm
in question the recipients.This discrepancy has been pointed out
for years by expert Wolfgang Werner who is quoted in your
article.Sum total:the ones who suffer as a result of the land
reform are not first and foremost the farmers, who after all are
compensated according to market prices (land and equipment are paid
for, other than in Zimbabwe), but it is the labourers and their
families who in many cases have been born on the farm and not only
lose their home but their daily bread as well.The composition and
linguistics of the article show that Thielke is a master of his
journalistic trade.In the course of his research he will
doubtlessly have stumbled across this aspect.We therefore come to
the conclusion that he misrepresents it knowingly.Especially since
he partly contradicts himself in other places:"In Namibia, too,
deserving heroes of the liberation struggle are to be rewarded with
expropriated land - like in Zimbabwe".This does not correspond with
the facts either.In the past, veterans themselves have repeatedly
demanded jobs, not land.Why then spread false information
deliberately? Because otherwise it would have become obvious that
the chosen example of farmer Wiese in fact has nothing to do with
the land reform concept.This is exactly what critics justly
reproach the government with when they point out that the reasons
for the expropriations currently under discussion are labour
disputes instead of the established criteria for land
redistribution.But Thielke desperately needs the Wiese case for
emotionally biasing the reader against land reform.This calculation
clearly comes through in the manner in which the beginning and end
of the article are composed:the first sentence ("Farmer Andreas
Wiese has lost his home") with the emotionally charged word "home";
the first paragraph with the moving description of the moment when
farmer Wiese received the letter of expropriation; and the
heartbreaking scene at the end when farmer Wiese "looks out of the
window" to see "his employees camping on the farm grounds, waiting
for him to finally leave".The grief of farmer Wiese is real and
tangible.Therefore it has to be condemned all the more that this
grief is put into the wrong context and misused for Mr Thielke's
own agenda.He also misuses the example of farmer Wiese to draw a
parallel between Namibia and Zimbabwe, where the government
tolerated the occupation of 'white' farms by 'blacks' and where
farmers were beleaguered, beaten up or even murdered.Thielke
insists on the parallel even though expert Wolfgang Werner says
that he (Werner) explicitly pointed out him (Thielke) during their
discussions that it cannot be drawn.Werner also says that when he
wanted to give reasons, Thielke did not want to know any and showed
no further interest.Thus we are not surprised that the disparities
with Zimbabwe are withheld in this article:such as the legal basis
of land reform, implementation according to the rule of law, the
prevailing principle of 'willing seller, willing buyer', and the
immediate intervention of the authorities in cases of attempted
farm occupations.From this we can only conclude that Mr Thielke
came to Namibia with a preconceived opinion and the firm intention
to have it confirmed - at any cost.No understanding - Mr Thielke's
bias is reflected in the composition of the article.He does not
discuss findings, he states his ideas.In order to have the reader
follow his opinion he falls back on a popular rhetorical trick:he
ridicules the political adversary, declares him
irrational.Ridiculous people are not taken seriously and one does
not even have to start taking a closer look at the goals and
reasoning of somebody irrational.With rough strokes of his pen
Thielke cleverly sketches a skewed picture of President Nujoma.He
mentions, for example, that in Namibian towns "there are plenty of
streets named after Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro and other heroes of
socialist people's wars", and a few lines on he writes of "old
guerrilla Nujoma with his unkempt revolutionary's beard".Thereby he
subliminally lumps Nujoma together with dictators thirsting for
expropriation while living in the past and clinging onto socialism
though it foundered long ago.It is true that Nujoma and Swapo are
loyal to their allies from the times of the liberation struggle and
express gratitude for the support rendered then also in the
(re)naming of streets.But does somebody live in the past because he
did not drop his old friends like hot potatoes when the tide turned
against them? Above all, Namibia's head of state and government has
been elected democratically - by a majority (almost 77%) of which
US presidents can only dream.When Namibia became independent in
1990 the ruling party, Swapo, unequivocally proclaimed its
commitment to a free market economy, the protection of private
property is embodied in Namibia's Constitution.Wording like "whim
of the aged leader" in the article, or "irrational doings" in the
caption, impute that Nujoma suffers from old-age dementia,
resulting in decisions being taken on the spur of the moment rather
than being guided by reason.The photo of Nujoma shaking the hand of
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is supposed to reinforce
Thielke's claim that Mugabe, who internationally is regarded as
being irrational, serves as a model which Nujoma is trying to
imitate.Thielke fails to note that other African leaders, including
South African President Thabo Mbeki, show solidarity with Mugabe to
the outside world, without adapting his policies for their own
country.Are all these Africans irrational? Or could it be that
their demonstrative stand is the rational result of centuries of
patronage by Europeans and their policy of divide and rule? Thielke
depicts land reform as a symptom of the madness which he diagnoses
himself.Thus he starts off on the topic by concluding that "the
government can hardly do anything more insane".He disguises the
fact that this is his own opinion by pretending that he is quoting
expert Wolfgang Werner - who insists that he never said any such
thing.Indeed, land reform does have its weaknesses, and they have
been the subject of public debate in Namibia for years:such as the
sluggish implementation due to lengthy procedures, distribution to
rich and influential Namibians, the problem of dismissed farm
labourers, insufficient assistance for the new farmers.None of
these points are noted by Thielke.But he gives ample space to the
central argument of critics, that poverty simply cannot be combated
by redistributing farming areas.From an economic point of view this
argument cannot be rejected.However, there is no mention of the
legitimate emotional and political reasons:120 years after
Europeans took possession of the country and 100 years after the
expropriation of their forefathers (mainly Herero and Nama),
'black' Namibians want to have the land physically at their
disposal again."But this exactly (to repossess land from whites
which was once stolen) is something the Herero do not really
consider an option", says Thielke, quoting a politician of the
opposition, Rudolph Kamburona, who is an Herero.Thielke fails to
point out, though, that the Ovaherero people do lay claim to the
land of their forefathers.Therefore it is a thorn in their sides
when members of the Ovambo people are given land in their former
settlement area.Which is understandable.A group-specific
redistribution, on the other hand, would promote a dangerous
tribalism and thereby undermine efforts in nation building,
striving so hard to overcome old barriers.Thus Herero and Nama do
not exclusively benefit from land distribution, but they also share
in it - in their capacity as citizens of Namibia.But Thielke, of
course, is not aiming at an impartial analysis, he is aiming at the
rhetorical dismantling of the political adversary, and he does not
even stop at racist thought.The words "war drums", "bush warrior"
and "war path" clearly raise the clichéd picture of a savage
beating the drums in the bush.Thielke absolutely outdoes himself,
though, with his verbal blow below the belt:the reinterpretation of
the memorial obelisk as a Presidential erection deliberately harps
on the prejudiced preconception of extraordinary black virility
which has its origins in darkest colonial times and still haunts
the minds of many Europeans and Namibians of European origin.At
times President Nujoma's statements have given rise to
criticism.That, however, is no reason for attempting total
demolition.Thielke's disparaging and racist way of dealing with the
political opponent is a relapse into Apartheid times.It does not
befit a democracy either.All the more we are shocked that it befits
'Der Spiegel'."Nujoma curses 'racist whites'", Thielke notes,
shaking his head.It is people like Thielke who provoke this
reaction.Namibia is a democracy since gaining independence in
1990.But as was the case in Germany after the Second World War,
many people still have to adapt democratic manners of dealing with
each other.We are shocked to find proof in the shape of Mr Thielke
that even after 60 years this process has not yet come to an
end.Responsibility - It is not our intention at all to run down Mr
Thielke in this letter and thereby display the same attitude which
we criticise in him (and some groups in Namibia).We understand his
position as a journalist:in the face of mostly negative news
stories the business produces a protective cynicism in the long
run, the competition of stories for the limited space in the
magazine furthers the lure of overdoing it.We also understand 'Der
Spiegel':competition between the media requires stories with a
drastic get-up and a graphic style.However, our understanding ends
when a story is knowingly dressed up for panic and strife - at the
expense of the people involved.There is, after all, a journalistic
duty to accuracy and a responsibility towards more than five
million readers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland - who
especially when it comes to reports about foreign countries rarely
have the means to cross-check information and opinions against own
experiences.Impact in Namibia - The government and the citizens of
Namibia regard 'Der Spiegel' as an important voice from
Germany.Here, therefore, Thielke's article is not simply seen as
one of many but as the Spiegel front page of 2004.Copies are handed
out everywhere.Many feel offended, many react with shock, some are
rejoicing.There are people who do not want to see change in Namibia
and pretend that nothing is changing.And there are people who find
it difficult to come to terms with the changes.Both groups turn to
the past for something to hold onto and as a point of
reference.This is expressed in phrases like "everything used to be
better... since independence we have taken a turn for the worse...
there is no future in Namibia".Thielke assumes this very same
attitude and indeed sums it up in his last sentence, "there is no
future left in Namibia".With this he - in contrast to Nujoma -
actually confirms the thinking of those hankering after the past,
even though it really does not have a future in today's Namibia,
and must not be allowed to have one.This backing is seen as even
more significant because 'Der Spiegel', at least before
independence, was associated with the political opponent, with
Swapo.In those days the magazine criticised the fact that no change
was taking place and heaped the blame on the 'rightist whites'.The
destructive effect on society, when people are encouraged to keep
walking into a dead end, is limited because it is a small group of
people.But at the same time 'Der Spiegel', with Thielke's article,
antagonises all those 'whites' who do see a future in Namibia, who
strive to work together with 'blacks' and want to contribute
constructively to building the new Namibia.After decades of
discrimination against blacks (in particular on the farms) bridges
of trust have to be put up gently.Lastly, 'Der Spiegel' lashes out
at President Nujoma as well as the government and thereby three
quarters of Namibia's population.In doing so, it delivers proof for
the prejudice harboured by these population groups against the
'whites', namely that they always think they know best or that they
are racist anyway.With this 'Der Spiegel' torpedoes the development
and enlargement of cooperation on an equal level - between Germany
and Namibia as well as between 'white' and 'black'
Namibians.Reaction - In order to counter this destructive effect we
will publish this letter in the local media in German and
English.We will also forward it to media companies and businesses
in Germany, with contacts to Namibia, and to websites with Namibian
content.Furthermore we hope that you will publish this letter in
your next issue, so that your readers have the opportunity to draw
their own conclusions with regard to Mr Thielke's article.And
lastly we want to ask you to send a journalist to Windhoek once
more in order to replace the one-sided impression with a more
multi-facetted picture of the country.During two weeks in November
Namibians elect a new president, a new parliament and a new
regional council.We will gladly help you with the cost, with
contacts, appointments and transport.It takes greatness to admit to
a mistake and correct it.If you prove to have such greatness, our
confidence into the reporting of 'Der Spiegel' will be
restored.Yours truly,Mannfred Goldbeck
Sven-Eric Kanzler