Consequences of Genocide

HISTORICALLY speaking, when acts of brutality were committed with intent to destroy ethnic groups or entire indigenous societies of any given country, the issues of apology and reparations become unavoidable and demand to be honoured.

Let us take the following case as an example: On August 14, 2004 Germany’s Minister of Economic Co-operation and Development, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, officially apologised. She asked for forgiveness for the killing of thousands of Namibia’s ethnic Hereros, Namas and Damaras by quoting from the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11:4 “And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”That is good as far as the forgiveness on atrocities and genocide is concerned, but what about reparations? We cannot bypass this question in the process of forgiveness; otherwise, we stand accused of forgiveness bypass.The reaction of Chief Kuaima Riruako leads us more in the direction of reparation.He said, “I am not here to refuse your apology and admission of guilt.There must now be dialogue to finish the unfinished business.”The response is a follow up attempt to link Luke 11:4 to the other version of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:12 “and forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.”What is important is that in the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11 we stress the trespasses and in Matthew 6 the economic benefits.Let us reformulate by saying that the general idea of apology or forgiveness is just the first step, and is certainly not all there is to it.Next is the question of reparation.In sum: What is needed is to combine the principles of apology, forgiveness, reconciliation, reconstruction and development, and reparation.When this happens there are forgiveness, reconciliation, and transformation: X has harmed Y; X is conscious of his or her guilt, Y is conscious of the harm.Both are traumatised.X comes to Y, offers sincere apologies for the harm, Y accepts the apologies.X is glad and is offering sincere reparation.Y accepts it and X and Y are reconciled.What was initiated by war, colonialism and genocide is terminated by offering and accepting an apology and paying the reparations; both – and not either-or.Paul John Isaak WindhoekShe asked for forgiveness for the killing of thousands of Namibia’s ethnic Hereros, Namas and Damaras by quoting from the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11:4 “And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”That is good as far as the forgiveness on atrocities and genocide is concerned, but what about reparations? We cannot bypass this question in the process of forgiveness; otherwise, we stand accused of forgiveness bypass.The reaction of Chief Kuaima Riruako leads us more in the direction of reparation.He said, “I am not here to refuse your apology and admission of guilt.There must now be dialogue to finish the unfinished business.”The response is a follow up attempt to link Luke 11:4 to the other version of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:12 “and forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.”What is important is that in the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11 we stress the trespasses and in Matthew 6 the economic benefits.Let us reformulate by saying that the general idea of apology or forgiveness is just the first step, and is certainly not all there is to it.Next is the question of reparation.In sum: What is needed is to combine the principles of apology, forgiveness, reconciliation, reconstruction and development, and reparation.When this happens there are forgiveness, reconciliation, and transformation: X has harmed Y; X is conscious of his or her guilt, Y is conscious of the harm.Both are traumatised.X comes to Y, offers sincere apologies for the harm, Y accepts the apologies.X is glad and is offering sincere reparation.Y accepts it and X and Y are reconciled.What was initiated by war, colonialism and genocide is terminated by offering and accepting an apology and paying the reparations; both – and not either-or.Paul John Isaak Windhoek