Reparations Aid Reconciliation
THERE is an ongoing debate in Namibia today about the genocide history and reparations after the German colonial power killed black Namibians during the period from 1904-1908.
For example, Von Lindequist stated, “Once the rebellion is over, the Hottentots, or rather what will remain of them, ought to be shipped to Togo or some other German colony where they will not do harm, but rather vanish from the scene in the not too distant future”. Or the notorious policy of genocide of Von Trotha when he issued the extermination order “to kill every member of the Herero… or have them fired on”. So, why is reparations not implemented in the case of Namibia?
Let me briefly give two examples from history where reparations have been honoured. In 1988, the government of the United States of America decided to apologise and compensate Japanese Americans who, after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941, were held in concentration camps, which the USA government described as relocation camps. The USA government not only mistreated and illegally detained Japanese Americans, but they also lay false charges against them that they had spied for the Japanese government during World War Two.
Likewise, the American Jewish Historical Society reported that the Israeli Knesset debated whether to accept Holocaust reparations from Germany in January 1952. Menachem Begin considered the reparations offer blood money. In September, however, German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer signed an agreement that the Federal Republic of Germany would provide in goods and services to the State of Israel as compensation for taking in survivors and for programmes to finance the relief, rehabilitation, and resettlement of Jewish Holocaust survivors; and direct reparations….
In sum: Where acts of brutality were committed with intent to destroy ethnic groups or entire indigenous societies of any given country, full reparations are honoured. Today, the implementation of reparations by the German government will secure justice at last to the 1904–1908 genocide period in Namibia. If the willingness to act within such a climate is on the table, in the words of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, one can talk about reconciliation, healing and forgiveness while looking the beast in the eye.
To my knowledge, the direction to start such reparation talks has been given by Chief Kuaima Riruako when he said, “I am not here to refuse your apology and admission of guilt. There must now be dialogue to finish the unfinished business”. His response is in line with the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:12, “and forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.”
What is important is that Matthew 6 emphasises “the forgiveness of debts” – which has economic implications. Let us reformulate by saying that the general idea of forgiveness is “to let go” or “to release”. But the letting go is just the first step, and is certainly not all there is to forgiveness. Next to the first step is “the unfinished business” or being released from the debt. In short, the question of obligation is an unavoidable part of forgiveness.
In short, reparation is part of forgiveness and reconciliation and we cannot bypass it.
Prof Paul John Isaak
Swakopmund