Reconciliation is Different The Flaws in the German-Namibian Joint Declaration on the Genocide

• HENNING MELBER and JEPHTA NGUHERIMOIN MID-2015, the German foreign ministry unofficially admitted that the war against local communities of the Ovaherero and Nama (and the Damara and San) between 1904 and 1908 in ‘German South West Africa’ was genocide. Bilateral negotiations with the Namibian government aimed to come to terms with this past.

In mid-May 2021, the special envoys of both countries initialled a Joint Declaration. While ratification by the foreign ministers was anticipated within weeks, this has remained a pending affair. Looking at the declaration’s flaws, this should not come as a surprise.

The declaration avoided far-reaching precedence by recognising the genocide in moral and political but not legal terms. It thereby excluded any reference to and obligation for reparations. For the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights, it was a “lost opportunity” as the declaration also falls short of a legally binding treaty based on international law.

Nor were the main agencies of the descendants of the most affected communities sufficiently involved in the negotiations. Nor were the results indicative of true remorse, including materially achieving restorative justice, for example in the restitution of land.

Declared “a gesture of recognition” (in itself a rather patronising description), the declaration allocates 1,05 billion euro over 30 years for development projects to Namibian regions with descendants of genocide victims. It’s about the same amount spent on German development cooperation in Namibia in the 30 years since independence. Another 50 million euro “will be dedicated to the projects on reconciliation, remembrance, research and education” over the same period.

In contrast, the annual maintenance costs of the controversial Humboldt Forum, which displays looted artefacts as colonial prey in a reconstructed Berlin castle, amount to an estimated 60 million euro.

The declaration stresses “that these amounts … settle all financial aspects of the issues relating to the past”. For many, such meagre material recognition adds insult to injury. Even leading members of Swapo and the government have expressed frustration.

‘NOT WITHOUT US’

The main agencies of the descendants and political opposition parties did not waste time in manifesting their disagreement. In a spectacular protest, hundreds of demonstrators, joined by MPs, stormed the fenced-in area outside parliament to voice their frustration when the matter was initially brought before the National Assembly.

For them, the negotiations equated to the dismissive slogan “nothing about us without us”. This refers to a substantive clause in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Adopted in 2007 and signed by both countries, article 18 states in no uncertain terms that they “have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures”.

Delayed by the escalating Covid pandemic in June, which also cost the lives of Namibian special envoy Zed Ngavirue and Ovaherero paramount chief Vekui Rukoro, the parliamentary debate only took place from late September to the end of November.

Numerous speakers from all parties expressed concerns, criticism and rejections regarding the shortcomings in an entirely new form of unity, condemning the declaration as insufficient. Deputy minister Ester Muinjangue, leader of the National Unity Democratic Organisation (Nudo) – the only member of government not from Swapo – set the tone when declaring: “We have the feeling our government is not supporting us. You hear government-to-government, but where are we?”

McHenry Venaani, leader of the official opposition Popular Democratic Movement (PDM), lambasted the agreed forms of compensation as “a flagrant display of arrogance by the German government”. Bernadus Swartbooi, leader of the Landless People’s Movement (LPM), the second largest opposition party, referred to the exclusion of the most affected indigenous communities “that this nation-state does not belong to all”.

Swapo MPs voiced frustration too. Minister Tom Alweendo expressed concern about the growing divisions: “I am afraid that should we continue with this path, then the legacy left by the divide and rule philosophy will continue to flourish.”

NO END IN SIGHT

Reconciliation between the people of the two countries, and also within Namibia, is further away than before. The parliamentary debate closed without any decision taken. The government announced that taking into consideration the contributions, it would seek further negotiations with the German side. Once an improved agreement was ratified, it would be submitted to parliament for acceptance.

But the German special envoy, Ruprecht Polenz, repeatedly confirmed – in line with Germany’s then foreign minister Heiko Maas – that the declaration would not be re-negotiated. In its coalition agreement, the new German government, in office since 9 December, stresses a commitment to pursue reconciliation with Namibia as an “indispensable task”. It might be wishful thinking, however, to expect foreign minister Annalena Baerbock from the Green Party to find a way out of the impasse. While there might be a way to top up the amount agreed through some backdoor arrangements, the term reparations will almost certainly also remain taboo for the new government.

Last but not least, even if re-negotiation was a viable option, the major challenge lies in including communities in Namibia and the diaspora most affected by the violent past in the present. It points to the limitations of government-to-government negotiations as long as these do not adequately recognise those who mainly bear the trauma and consequences of the genocide.

According to the Joint Declaration: “Germany apologises and bows before the descendants of the victims (…) The Namibian government and people accept Germany’s apology and believe that it paves the way to a lasting mutual understanding and the consolidation of a special relationship between the two nations.”

Without the descendants of the genocide substantially involved and willing to reconcile by accepting such an apology of their own free will, this remains as patronising and paternalistic as colonialism. It underlines the continued asymmetries.

There is no true reconciliation without a marked sign of remorse and a public apology as a matter of domestic policy in Germany herself. This would signify any serious effort by Germans to address the genocidal record. The road to reconciliation remains long.

* Jephta Nguherimo is a US-based labour negotiator and reparation activist/advocate.

* Henning Melber is a professor at the University of Pretoria and an associate professor of the Nordic Africa Institute in Uppsala.