Admin

To: Members of Parliament, Republic of Namibia
From: Dr. Kavemuii Murangi, President and Founder of ONGI
Re: Genocide agreement between the German and Namibian governments.

Dear Honorable Speaker, Honorable Members of Parliament and Fellow Namibians

I am a Namibian-born educator currently living in the United States of America, and a descendant of direct victims of the Ovaherero and Nama genocides.

I invite you to step into my world, to see from my perspective. For more than a century we have been fighting. Imagine. Fighting continuously for almost 120 years. Fighting the Germans. Fighting extinction. Fighting for international recognition. Fighting our own government for acknowledgment of the genocide. Fighting helplessness when no one would listen. Fighting the Germans for acknowledgment of the genocide. Fighting bondage to our history. Fighting inside ourselves to understand that history. Constantly fighting for justice to break these chains. And today, fighting to stop yet another betrayal. If we lose this fight, tomorrow we’ll have an additional barrier to justice.

Imagine. Aching for almost 120 years. We are exhausted. We are demoralized. We ache. Our bones ache, our minds ache, our hearts ache, our souls ache. We ache. We ache from fighting. We ache from having our hopes dashed again and again. 120 years of fighting takes its toll. We ache for that salve of justice to not just soothe but heal the wounds that make us ache. This so-called agreement contains no justice and only sharpens our pain and obstructs and prolongs our fight for restorative justice.

Imagine…bondage for almost 120 years. We are trapped. Rather than live freely and breathe freely, we are trapped by injustice. We are trapped knowing we have no closure to the genocide that almost eliminated us. We are trapped with one foot entrenched in the pain of the past. Trapped, as our collective cry, while piercing our own ears, seems to be unheard by the Namibian government.

Trapped because our fight for justice has been usurped by an agreement supposedly for us, but not by us—an agreement that fails to adhere to the most basic tenants of justice. Trapped, because no matter how “well-intentioned” and immediate, we were absent in its creation. We have a saying, anything done without us is against us. That absence amplified because the agreement falls terribly short of what we need for closure. The agreement falls short on recognition, on meaning-full apology and reparations.

Trapped by a dread that the German and the Namibian Governments will enjoy the façade of resolution that ironically creates yet another obstacle to justice—this one more formidable because our government is sanctioning it. Trapped by a foreboding feeling that these governments will prioritize the self-aggrandizing absolution of placing their signatures on a fancy document that essentially authorizes a century of struggle to be swept under a rug, even while the victims of the genocide unanimously warn that this agreement causes more harm than good.

I strongly believe that rather than resolving our struggle, this document will serve to undermine our century-old quest for justice. Indeed, it will implicate those who approve it in the systemic denial of restorative justice for the genocide of the OvaHerero, OvaMbanderu, and Nama people and the killing of, and atrocities against the San and Damara people. That is, by supporting this document, you are guilty of continuing the effort to dehumanize the very people you say you are representing. Strong words, I know, but what else does one call crafting an agreement without authentic representation of the victims? What right does the government have to bluster towards an agreement to which the victims of the genocide are uniformly opposed? It is dehumanizing. It is self-serving. The Namibian government would better serve us by doing nothing. For then, it would not actively contribute to undermining our demands for justice. It would not actively participate in prolonging our fight and our pain.

As things stand, I cannot shake the feeling of impending pain, a sense of doom for a seemingly inevitable outcome—an outcome that affects me, but in which I have no choice.
An outcome that is beyond personal, it’s almost definitional, and yet I have no voice. This letter is my attempt to reach you, to make my voice heard, to once more amplify our cry for justice.

What choices will we have if you choose to support an agreement that impedes our quest for justice by delivering the façade of resolution? I promise you that we will not step back, we will not falsely praise this sham of an agreement. We will continue to do what we have done for almost 120 years. We will fight. Yes, we will ache, and yes, we will continue to feel trapped, but we will not lose hope.

My great-great-grandfather Rapote and great-great-grandmother Katjiukua were killed in 1904 during the genocide. He was killed fighting at Ohamakari. She, like many others, was pushed into the harsh desert where she died. Their four daughters survived but did not escape the horrors of the genocide. They were enslaved in concentration camps, and upon release, raped by German men, including Victor Franke. Their cries ring in my ears, and I will not play deaf. I will not stop fighting. I am resolved that my children will know justice or will die fighting.

Imagine. You recognize that the agreement is not a solution nor a steppingstone to a solution. You realize that the agreement hurts the odds of attaining justice and creates new barriers to justice. You then choose to reject this call for political expediency to adopt a deeply flawed and dehumanizing document, and instead, you join our call for justice.

Imagine: You strongly oppose the resolution to stand with the victims of genocide. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with you.

Imagine: You seek the empowered representation of the affected people, we will send descendants of genocide victims who currently reside in Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, the United States, and beyond—who understand us and represent us.

Imagine. Your stance in opposition to the sham agreement results in the opportunity for us to forge an authentic deal that delivers justice—an agreement where Germany offers an unequivocal recognition of the genocide. Germany renders a meaningful apology directly to the victims – in Otjiherero and Nama – to pave the road to forgiveness and healing. An agreement that also includes reparations commensurate with our suffering, reparations to redress the loss of life, land, and property. We will remember your contribution. We will honor you.

And history will remember that when faced with a decision to continue to oppress a people who have been beaten down for 120 years or so, instead, hear their voices and fight for them, you chose the enlightened path. This will surely be a more arduous path due to political pressure, but you know it is the right path to justice. We, the OvaHerero, OvaMbanderu, and Nama people-are counting on you!

Okuhepa. Thank you.

After years of German denial and the Namibian government’s indifference, this month could have marked the end of the genocide and usher in an era of healing and restorative justice. However, in cahoots with the Namibian ruling party elites, the German government chose instead to try and bully the victims of genocide into accepting an insulting, politically calculated, and self-serving agreement.

On recognizing the genocide
The agreement document claims that the horrific atrocities committed during the colonial war culminated in events that, from today’s perspective, would be called genocide. It was a genocide (period). Germany hides behind smoke and mirrors, implicitly claiming that because the term genocide did not exist at the time of the genocide of the Ovaherero and Nama people, Germany cannot be held legally responsible for the crimes of genocide under the Hague Convention. Germany did not apply this standard to the Holocaust, also committed before the 1948 Genocide Convention was adopted.

Perhaps the qualified definition of genocide would seem less important if the agreement met the moral and pragmatic requirements for a genuine apology and reparations. However, the deal falls short on those two key elements as well. Perhaps, a demonstration of the fact that it may not be possible to use a qualified non-legal recognition of the genocide and achieve restorative justice. The tone, language, and substance of this agreement underscores an unbelievable level of tone-deafness despite many years of negotiations, public discourse, and demands of the affected communities. This play on words highlights Germany’s reluctance to accept complete moral responsibility for the genocide, do right by the Ovaherero and Nama, offer a meaningful apology, provide restorative justice and help ensure the safety and security of the affected communities.

Regarding an apology
Apologizing at the state level is no different from a personal apology. The apology must be genuine and heartfelt. It must speak to the victim, state the harm done, and include some means to correct or mitigate the damage done and commit not to repeat the wrong. Germany must render an apology directly to the descendants of the victims. The apology must include a detailed accounting of the damage done by the genocide. To be meaningful and to lead to forgiveness, the apology must include reparations.

This apology document falls short on process, tone, and substances. It is woefully incoherent, and it is not clear if the agreement is discussing genocide or atrocities. At times it is not clear whom the document is referring to. In essence, the deal is timid and evasive about describing the genocide and what transpired. Germany’s apology is agnostic about many things, including the following.

(a) The agreement excludes tens of thousands of descendants of victims in Botswana and South Africa and other parts of the world, including Togo, Cameroun, the U.K, the U.S.A., Canada, and Germany. Some estimates put the number of Ovambanderu and Ovaherero in Botswana at 50,000. The numbers in South Africa are equally high. Interestingly, the agreement recognizes that the German state seized and occupied ancestral land, and the actions of Germany “led to the expulsion and displacement of indigenous communities from their ancestral lands. In some cases, communities were forced out of what today is Namibia itself and have remained uprooted to this day.” They remained uprooted and excluded from this agreement. The idea that Germany can apologize for the genocide while excluding a large section of the victims illustrates Germany’s disingenuousness and lack of sensitivity to the Ovaherero and Nama people as a whole.

The exclusion of these descendants further victimizes them and accentuates the destructive psychological effects. It perpetuates the genocide for them. It is unmistakably more painful for the Namibian government to support such an agreement in a free and independent Namibia, though not surprising. It didn’t have to be this way. Germany’s history includes examples of how to address reparations for victims who reside in different countries. After the Holocaust, Germany negotiated with Israel and Jews from all over the world. Jews that did not live in Israel included.

(b) This agreement is eerily silent on the issue of rape. The word rape is mentioned once in a way that suggests a cover-up or denial. German soldiers and settlers abused and committed genocidal rape against Ovaherero and Nama women. Ovaherero and Nama women were raped before, during, and after the genocide. The Germans raped women in concentration camps and raped women they enslaved. The rape of Ovaherero and Nama women was so prevalent that German authorities passed anti-miscegenation laws to prevent mixing races and prevent these children born of rape to claim German heritage and access to German social welfare.

To this date, Germany has disavowed these mixed-race Ovaherero and Nama people while propping up and supporting certain German-speaking Namibians. Any apology should speak to the physical and psychosocial destruction, and the lingering pain resulting from the rape and subsequent abuse, and ongoing denial of rights to the descendants of the victims of rape. As a gesture of penance and restitution, Germany should offer descendants of victims of rape, German citizenship, and access to German social welfare, options that were available to German-speaking Namibians. That would be a symbolic gesture.

(c) The agreement declares that human remains of our people “were removed unlawfully and shipped to Germany.” Still, it is silent on the moral responsibility of the German government to make sure that all such remains are returned to Namibia immediately, without further delay. Furthermore, it is incredibly tight-lipped on the remains of over 100,000 Ovaherero and Nama, who perished during the genocides. We have not buried our ancestors. Where are their remains? Some are in shallow graves in Swakopmund. Some are around Ozombuzovindimba and many other poisoned wells where they died – just beneath the surface, waiting to be swept by flood. How do we make sure that these remains are cared for with dignity? Identifying, securing, and laying these bodies to rest is a massive and costly undertaking requiring technical and logistical expertise. A remorseful Germany owes that to our ancestors, to us.

(d) It is vague on the Ovaherero and Nama people who perished due to the genocide. However, Germany killed more than 80% of the Ovaherero and more than 70% of the Nama during the genocide – approximately 100,000 people.
(e) The agreement is silent on the role played by German institutions and companies and “their successors (including Deutsche Bank, Wecke & Voigts, Woermann, and others) who profited from Ovaherero and Nama slave labor between 1904 and 1908.” They, too, owe our people an apology and reparations.

(f) It is silent about the role of churches and missionaries in the genocide and the need for concrete actions to address past injustices.

(g) The agreement is agnostic about the underlying racial hegemony that gave rise to and cultivated the genocide. The tone and substance of this document are condescending, if not racist.
(h) The agreement is silent about the need for educational programs in Namibia and Germany on the horrors of the genocides and the evils of racial hegemony. A concrete commitment to education, especially in Germany, would move Germany towards atoning for the atrocities and preventing a recurrence. In addition, it would be beneficial if both governments commit to passing laws in both countries, making it illegal to deny the Ovaherero and Nama genocides.

On material reparations
The agreement falls short on the issue of reparations. Germany has only offered grants or development aid rather than meaningful reparations. The overwhelming majority of Ovaherero and Nama reject this agreement. They have rejected Germany’s offer of 1.1 billion Euros. Even some affected community leaders who participated in the Namibian government-led negotiations rejected the amount as insultingly insufficient.

Interestingly the document states that “both Governments share the understanding that the amounts mentioned above settle all financial aspects of the issues relating to the past addressed in this Joint Declaration.” It is noteworthy that Germany hasn’t accepted legal responsibility for the genocide yet wants to be absolved of any future claims regarding the genocide. This clause seems to be a tacit admission that someone could challenge the agreement, that there would be a legal basis to seek reprieve in Namibia, Germany, or international courts. As a result, Germany looked for—and Namibia is providing—cover at the expense of victims of the genocides.

The Namibian government lacks the moral and legal authority to accept the apology on behalf of the Ovaherero and Nama people, enter into this agreement, and take away people’s right to seek justice. It is an abuse of power and tyranny that cannot stand. Furthermore, the Namibian government’s secretive negotiations with Germany, and their refusal to allow the affected communities to participate in talks directly, is a) in contravention of the Namibian parliament resolution of 2006; b) contradicts and rejects the spirit of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; c) goes against the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) which requires equal and full participation of women in decision-making regarding resolution and prevention, and end of impunity for genocides, and crimes against humanity including crimes relating to sexual and other violence against women.

In closing
Securing restorative justice requires active and broad-based participation of the affected communities, including descendants in the Diaspora. This process and outcome are insulting and traumatic to the Ovaherero and Nama. This agreement is a concrete example of the adage “anything without us is against us.” The struggle for restorative justice will continue until Germany fully and unequivocally accepts that it committed genocide, engages representatives of the affected communities directly, and addresses restorative justice with the humanity, dignity, and respect deserved.

Ekuamo ra Kahimemua indi?   A German-Namibian Colonial History – The Belt of Kahimemua Nguvauva – by Christiane Habermalz. The following is an un-official Google Translation (English) of “Der Gürtel des Kahimemua Nguvauva” which was written in German. The original article in German is available at https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/eine-deutsch-namibische-kolonialgeschichte-der-guertel-des.976.de.html?dram:article_id=469578

On October 12, 2015, Dr. Kavemuii Murangi participated in a panel discussion on the OvaHerero/Mbanderu and Nama Genocides of 1904-1908 at the University of Hamburg, Germany. The panel discussion was titled “Not about us without us,” a title designed to highlight the unfortunate state of affairs where the German government and Namibian governments are said to be involved in negotiations on the issue of genocide without the direct involvement of the affected communities. Panelists included Jefta Nguherimo (labor activist, historian, and founding member of the ONGI); Professor Jurgen Zimmerer (University of Hamburg); and Dr. Kavemuii Murangi (co-founder member and director, ONGI). This post shares Dr. Murangi’s presentation on the demands of the OvaHerero and Nama.  “Our Common Humanity Demands It” I am a father of three daughters; the youngest is 10 years old. I am also a descendant of victims of the genocide. My great-great-grandfather died in 1904 during the genocide war. The Schutztruppe pushed his wife and daughters into the desert as were many OvaHerero. Many of them would perish from exhaustion, hunger or thirst as the wells were poisoned, or from being shot. Hungry, exhausted, and thirsty, rather than allow herself to be captured and killed by Germans, my great-great-grandmother begged passersby to end her misery. Their daughters were captured and put in concentration camps or death camps. Concentration camps were characterized by systematic abuse and slave-like conditions, starvation, forced labor, rape, and death. The death rate ranged from 40 – 70% percent in these camps – hence the name ‘death camps.’    Most notorious were the Shark Island camp on Lüderitz, the Swakopmund camp, and the Windhoek camp, which was known as Katjombondi or Vile Place. The genocide of the OvaHerero was calculated, systematic and extremely effective. The Kaiser’s government through its troops and General Luther Von Trotha, came as close as any one has come in the 20th century to liquidating an entire people. Between 1904 and 1908, all OvaHerero and Nama people who lived in central and southern Namibia were either dead, in concentration camps, or in exile. An entire people—up to 85 percent of the OvaHerero and 50 percent of the Nama—were exterminated. My great-great-grandfather’s daughters were raped by German soldiers or settlers, and gave birth to children of mixed heritage. My grandmother saw her German father but never knew or talked to him. Yes, my grandparents and their parents experienced physical, psychological and emotional pain. As I grew older, I began to recognize this pain in my grandparents and my parents. To this day, a death in the family is essentially bereavement over the pain and death of the genocide. It is amazing how an event so long ago can still engender so much pain and angst. As descendants of the genocides, we have inherited that loss and pain. The devastation and cruelty was so great that it is ingrained in our DNA, in our hearts and souls like a hereditary disease – in fact, it is a disease that is passed on from one generation to another. I do not want to pass this disease onto my children, much less to their children. I want them to know about the genocide factually and intellectually, but not emotionally and psychologically as my generation and generations before us experienced these events. We need to cut this link, by taking measures that begin the healing process for the victims of genocide – for our sake, but most importantly for the sake of our children and their children, for the sake of OvaHerero, Nama, and German children, and their children. The current generation of German leaders should not pass this historical and moral burden to future generations. They should have the courage to take measures that would begin the process of healing and free our peoples (Herero, Nama, and German) from the ghosts of the past. They should a) recognize the 1904-1908 atrocities as genocide, b) offer an apology, c) return all human remains stolen and stored in German institutions, d) make amends and restitution, and e) engage in direct meaningful dialogue with the descendants of the genocides. a) The German government and the Bundestag must recognize the atrocities committed against the OvaHerero and Nama as genocides. Germany has acknowledged the Holocaust and made reparations and has recognized the Armenian genocide, even though both predate the 1948 convention on genocide, yet has failed so far to recognize the Namibia genocides under the pretext that the term genocide did not exist. Earlier this year a group of German citizens, parliamentarians, and members of NGOS launched the Genocide is Genocide petition that calls on the German government to stop the double standards and recognize the OvaHerero and Nama genocides. Dr. Lammert, speaker of the German parliament, recently publicly stated that he personally views these atrocities as genocide and war crimes. The Left Party and the Green Party have introduced motions recognizing the OvaHerero and Nama genocides, apologizing to the OvaHerero and Nama people, and offering restitution. We urge the Bundestag to pass these common sense motions and end these political games by the German government. b) We demand a sincere and heartfelt apology from the German government and the Bundestag and commend the Left and Green for tabling a motion that includes an apology to the victims and their descendants. A public apology would be consistent with Germany’s ideals as a democratic and freedom loving state that cherish the rights and worth of all people regardless of color, country of birth, or station in life. It is the moral thing to do and will re-affirm Germany’s own humanity and our humanity in Germany’s eyes. Former Germany’s development aid minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul offered an apology in 2004 for the 1904-1908 atrocities, and indicated that these events constituted genocide. Her unscripted comments showed that her apology was sincere and heartfelt and she has since demonstrated this in different ways including her participation in the Genocide is Genocide petition. Through an apology, affirming our common humanity, Germany will usher in an era of healing and true