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.