Genocide pertaining to Namibia refers to fascist Germany’s systematic extermination of Ovaherero and Nama in 1904- 1908, in what has come to be known as the 20th century’s first genocide in the then “German South West Africa.”
Entailing land theft, concentration camps, and torture, leaving deep scars and shattered souls among the descendants’ communities, who to this day are still in pursuit of restorative justice.
Geopolitically, Namibia seeks an unconditional apology and reparations from Germany for its genocidal past. Negotiations have been prolonged and complicated by Germany’s intransigence, political disputes, and legal hurdles.
These issues have hindered true restorative justice, which ideally should have been addressed earlier.
Key geopolitical influence
Geopolitics influences Namibia-Germany genocide and reparation discussions, especially global conflicts. South Africa’s ICJ case accuses apartheid Israel of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention with its Gaza military campaign, which Namibia supports.
Germany’s support for Israel is central to its foreign policy, driven by historical responsibility from the Holocaust, including political, financial, and military aid, described as part of its “staatsräson.” Germany’s ongoing aid to Gaza raises questions about its moral character, given its past in German South West Africa (Namibia) from 1904-1908.
Namibia’s firm support for Palestinian self-determination and an independent state challenges Western powers and may lack sympathy or support for genocide restorative justice.
Namibia criticises Germany for supporting Israel at the ICJ, accusing Germany of hypocrisy due to its unresolved colonial atrocities against Ovaherero and Nama and its stance on Palestine.
This tension risks straining diplomatic ties and has upset Western allies. Germany’s internal politics, including government shifts and the rise of the AfD, hinder efforts for full acknowledgement and reparations.
The German government prefers a moral and political acknowledgment over legal reparations to avoid setting a legal precedent.
Meanwhile, affected communities, like Ovaherero and Nama descendants, suffer trauma, poverty, and cultural loss, largely excluded from negotiations that remain government-driven, leading to demands for direct engagement and true reparations.
These seeming internal impediments have thrown significant spanners in the process and/or processes, thereby ostensibly rendering the Namibian government’s position in the ongoing negotiations untenable, if not totally unworkable.
All these complex geopolitical factors, coupled with internal dissonance, have caused significant setbacks and, sadly, as a result, the Joint Declaration (JD) has yet to have the seal of the Namibian parliament, if it ever was intended and destined for Parliament to seal and deliver any brokerage on Genocide and Reparations as per the 2006 Resolution.
Namibia remains economically tied to Germany, its former coloniser, receiving over €1.6 billion (N$32 billion) in aid since 1990, making it the highest-per-capita recipient in Africa.
Geopolitical tensions influence negotiations, as powerful nations use hard, soft, and smart power to maintain influence.
When negotiations falter, the legal principle that war crimes and crimes against humanity cannot be time-barred is crucial for justice, upheld by international law and enforced by the UN Security Council. Recently, Western powers’ use of vetoes to block resolutions shielding their interests has been diminished.
The centre of gravity
The needs and voices of the victim communities must be at the centre of gravity in genocide negotiations over diplomatic convenience. The centre of gravity (COG) is the primary source of power, strength, and motivation that drives a party’s position and enables it to achieve its objectives.
This should be the core strength and legitimacy of the Namibian position in the negotiations.
Thus, the Namibian government must strengthen its negotiating position by addressing fundamental internal weaknesses, specifically by fostering unity, directly involving affected communities in the negotiations, demanding legal recognition of genocide, and providing direct equitable reparations.
In summary, with geopolitics in hindsight, Namibia needs to improve its centre of gravity in these negotiations. A stronger, unified position would increase Namibia’s leverage in negotiations with Germany.
With the new German government in place, Namibia has an opportunity to re-evaluate its strategy.
Namibia’s improved stance would hold Germany to a higher standard of atonement.
But when all else eventually fails, resorting to ancestral land reclamation remains a central strategy for leverage and a high-stakes bargaining chip to create de facto realities on the ground and gain an advantage in redressing the historical injustices of colonial land dispossession.
*Maj. Gen. (Rtd) J. B Tjivikua is a descendant of victims of the 1904-1908 genocide.