Kae Matundu-
Tjiparuro
AS an ardent observer of Namibian-German bilateral relations, especially as it relates to Germany’s avowed historic and moral responsibility to Namibia, and particularly to the descendants of the victims of the communities who were grossly and grievously affected by colonial Germany’s engagement in the then Deutsche Südwes Afrika, one cannot but welcome the new German Director General for Sub-Saharan Africa and the Sahel, Ambassador Georg Schmidt.
Similarly, one cannot but take note of his seeming cordial and sober overtures regarding directly engaging representatives of the direct descendants of the victims of especially Germany’s colonial excesses about 111 years ago.
In fact, for a very long time now the representatives of the descendants of the victims have been like a lone voice in the wilderness calling and clamouring for the day when German diplomatic envoys here in Windhoek would facilitate such a direct engagement.
If not in the least, they themselves engaging such representatives to ultimately convey their wishes, expectations, hopes and aspirations, if not fears to the Berlin government.
But such an approach and perspective has for long been frowned and shunned upon by successive Germany envoys to Namibia.
Actually relations between such envoys and representatives of the affected communities, especially the traditional leaders have at most and at worst been non-existent, if not outright hostile and belligerent, and only lukewarm and superficial at best. These relations if they can be called relations at all in anyway, reached an all-time low if not the precipice of a wholesale deterioration and complete breakdown with the infamous and insensitive utterances by Ambassador Egon Koschanke, the previous German Ambassador to the current Ambassador, His Excellency Onno Hückman.
At the State’s official receipt of the return of the first consignment of skulls of the indigenous victims of the German and Ovaherero-Nama wars of resistance in October 2011, Ambassador Koschanke was categorical in his disdain and lack of respect for the Namibian traditional leaders, who have been at the forefront of impressing upon Germany, and the entire free and well-meaning progressive international fraternity, Germany’s unfinished business with them as heir apparent to their forefathers and –mothers, and thus their unfinished legacy with government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
“My government does not maintain special relations with individual ethnic groups,” Koschanke stated categorically in the presence of Namibian President, His Excellency Hifikepunye Pohamba, and other cabinet members, parliamentarians, and last but not the least, the very Namibian traditional leaders.
This must have encapsulated not only the position of successive German envoys in Namibia, and their relationships with Namibian traditional leaders, but also these envoys and their government’s wholesome indifference and dismissive approach to the just demand of the indigenes regarding Germany’s historic and moral responsibility to Namibia in general, and the affected communities in particular.
That is why one cannot but take note of Ambassador Schmidt’s overtures albeit not without any caution. But overtures is all what one should read in them until such are followed up by concrete measures in terms of dialoguing with the direct and pertinent representatives of the affected communities.
Because while lately in the country, and having met and seen various interested parties, including traditional leaders, it is little convincing that indeed this did happen. Not with the excuse that one of the pivotal traditional leaders in this configuration was apparently not available at the time of his visit.
While such a leader is part and parcel of a structure. Does it mean the whole structure was not available?
If Ambassador Schmidt purports to make a new and forthright beginning on this matter, he must be seen to be making such indeed not intentionally only. Lest his initiative is seen as just another bluff. It is good and pleasing that he may have seen some of the relevant players but such cannot be the beginning nor the end if the most pivotal player (s) seem to be bypassed and/or ignored.
Yes, it is only natural, sensible and appropriate and diplomatically ethical and right for him to have seen representatives of the Namibian government and members of parliament.
But were all MPs, especially those representing the affected communities, and those who have been untiringly championing the cause of the affected communities in the context of German historic and moral responsibility invited for an audience with him?
Oft there has been a repetition of the lie that the reparation movement is averse to government’s involvement in the reparation issue.
At best such a repetition perpetuated by those who should be in the know about not only the genesis of the reparation movement but its content and mission and vision, is malicious at worst, and at best a deliberate attempt at derailing the movement for own selfish political agendas.
There is no well meaning and genuine part of the reparation movement who can deny and reject the Namibian government’s engagement of its German counterpart on this issue.
In fact, the motion the Namibian National Assembly passed in 2006 on the matter naturally means the matter has been squarely put on the agenda of both governments.
So how can those in the reparation movement, having sponsored such a motion now turn against it? As much Namibian MPs have the legitimate right to pursue the matter on parliament-to-parliament level with their Bundestag counterparts. But both the Namibian government, and Namibian MPs, must be aware from where the reparation mandate germinates and is deposited, namely the affected communities, if only for the sake of knowing the feelings of the affected communities as and when the issue evolves.
In a nutshell the right hand must constantly continually be feeling the pulse of the whole body in the reparation configuration, especially the zenith of this configuration on the level of the affected communities.
This is if in the least to know and satisfy self and to be consonant and in synch with the aspirations of the affected communities.
Whatever government structure shall be contemplated with regard to advancing the cause of reparation, it cannot be without the necessary but not necessarily sufficient direct input of the affected communities.
This has been the outlook of the affected communities which has been grossly and maliciously misrepresented by those who should know better and are even political representatives of the affected communities!