The negotiations that culminated in the nebulous Joint Declaration (JD) between Germany and Namibia should have been based on the strength of a Namibian parliamentary resolution of 2006.
The resolution emanated from a motion tabled by the late president of the National Unity Democratic Organisation (Nudo), chief Kuaima Riruako.
It was predicated on the German government acknowledging the genocide of the Ovaherero and Nama by imperial Germany.
It involved apologising and eventually atonement in terms of international law and/or accepted norms, political, moral and otherwise.
The JD falls short in several areas and makes the credibility, transparency and acceptability of the declaration problematic.
It lacks effective comprehensive reparation for victims, including adequate restitution of confiscated land, compensation, psychosocial and physical rehabilitation, and satisfying the interests of direct genocide victims (Ovaherero and Nama).
Thus, 1.1 billion euros is not commensurate with the value of the loss of lives, livestock, land, culture and dignity.
INADEQUATE MEASURES
Similarly, the declaration does not spell out measures to establish the truth about the facts surrounding violations, including sexual violence committed against women and girls.
It is based on German perspectives. For example, resolutions by the German Bundestag of 1989 and 2004 are used to justify development assistance and reconciliation.
These are irrelevant to the issue, which is genocide reparations.
The German Bundestag resolution of 1989 is actually an agreement between Swapo and Germany (as initiated by Hans Dietrich Genscher, then German foreign affairs minister).
Namibia’s negotiating team ought to have reminded Germany that the so-called question related to the role of non-state actors only within the framework of inter-governmental negotiations was laid to rest in 1952.
In September 1951, then chancellor Konrad Adenauer of West Germany addressed his parliament: “(U)nspeakable crimes have been committed in the name of the German people, calling for moral and material indemnity … The federal government is prepared, jointly with representatives of Jewry and the State of Israel … to bring about a solution of the material indemnity problem, thus easing the way to the spiritual settlement of infinite suffering.”
In 1951, Nahum Goldman established The Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany (also known as the Claims Conference).
On 10 September 1952, after six months of negotiations, a reparations agreement between the Claims Conference and Adenauer’s government in West Germany was reached.
Yet, Namibia has not disputed Germany’s claim that it cannot negotiate with non-state parties.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Although Namibia has, at legislative level, already recognised that the atrocities of 1904-1908 amounted to genocide, the JD still insists on Germany’s version that what happened in1904-1908 is only genocide “in today’s terms”.
Namibia’s negotiators ought to have known that the Holocaust (genocide against the Jews) took place between 1939-1945 before the creation of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December 1948, to which Germany is a signatory.
Yet, Germany recognises the Holocaust as genocide and does not have a caveat of “in today’s terms”, as is the case with Namibia.
Moreover, the Ovaherero/Nama genocide of 1904-1908 was recognised by the UN in the Benjamin Whitaker Report of 1985/6.
Similarly, the UN Joint Communication from the Rapporteurs of the Special Procedures of February 2023 has, in no uncertain terms, called the events of 1904-1908 genocide.
They were also emphatic that reparations must follow for the victims.
WHYS AND WHEREFORES
No provision is made for descendants of genocide victims who find themselves in the diaspora, nor were there consultations with them.
The cardinal question of the inter-generational trauma, which is perpetual, has not been addressed.
No benchmarks and measurable indicators to determine improvement or otherwise, in terms of the standard of living of the Ovaherero and Nama from the funds and programmes of the 1.1 billion euros, have been indicated.
As the JD does not mention the word reparations, it is obvious it has nothing to do with reparations, the objective of which ought to be reparatory justice.
This is clear evidence of a travesty of justice.
The JD is also silent on the question of enlisting German companies which profited from forced labour and expropriation in Namibia to contribute towards indemnification.
In addition, most Ovaherero/Nama (Ovaherero Traditional Authority, Nama Traditional leaders Association and Okandjoze Chiefs’ Assembly), political parties, church groups and prominent individuals from the Ovaherero and Nama communities, have rejected the JD in toto.
Thus, there is a compelling case to reset the negotiations including all representatives of the descendants in the presence of the UN and the African Union.
Why is Namibia ready to sign the JD which is misaligned with the aspirations of the Ovaherero and Nama international law and international conventions?
- Usutuaije Maamberua is a descendant of the Ovaherero/Nama genocide victims
