3 weeks ago

New Era Newspaper Friday February 23, 2018

  • Text
  • Namibia
  • February
  • Windhoek
  • Namibian
  • African
  • Oshakati
  • Germany
  • Genocide
  • Allocation
  • Documents


12 EDITORIAL NEWS Friday, February 23 2018| | NEW ERA 208 0318 Consider ‘presently disadvantaged’ for fishing quotas Fisheries and Marine R e s o u r c e s M i n i s t e r Bernhardt Esau indicated last week that he will soon announce for this year. as a tool of consideration in is outdated and has caused this own and the country. is for all of us. Fisheries is one of the sectors intentions of the state. This is a Save our girls and end violence against women Our youth, especially the men, should be instilled with respect for the fairer sex at a young age. They human, and should have that knowledge that any diversion from this thought is inhumane and barbaric and cannot be condoned. in entirety. They are critical in the eradication of * Rev. J A Scholtz Lüderitz of any truth. * Issued by and on behalf of the Onethika members of the Ondonga Royal Family Kuku Selma Gwanandjokwe Shejavali Kuku Hileni Kandali Nepando Kuku Lucia Mweshihala Hiveluah

Friday, February 23 2018 | NEW ERA thought leaders Developing Namibia: Ideas of a passionate man 13 >> P14 I was extremely concerned by the out of context boasting of His Excellency Christian Schlaga, the ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany to Namibia regarding the so-called “highest per capita income aid to Namibia”. In my opinion, these boastful remarks were extremely insensitive and were crude to the extent that they may have bordered on being insulting. In my view they also do not fall far off the now infamous Clare Short remarks to Zimbabweans with regard to Britain’s obligation to land reform in Zimbabwe. At best, these views represent a total lack of sincerity on the part of the German government in respect of the ongoing negotiations between our two governments and at worst the remarks reveal a continued arrogance in European foreign policy towards Africa in general. In a recent meeting of European ambassadors with His Excellency Dr Hage Geingob, the President of the Republic of Namibia, and several Namibian cabinet ministers, the German ambassador said that “Germany paid more per capita to Namibia in development aid compared to any other African country”. This was in response to the President’s question to European ambassadors as to what Europe had done and is doing to help Namibia address the legacy of structural injustice of poverty that has its roots in the colonial past of the country. Schlaga’s remarks were an ill-fated attempt at intellectual shrewdness but can seen as being disrespectful towards the Namibian people, as represented by their ultimate sovereign, the President. In making the remarks, Schlaga conveniently forgets that Germany was responsible but never formally acknowledged and apologised for the 1st genocide of the 20th Century committed by his country from 1904 to 1908 against the people of Namibia, in order to extend “lebensraum” for Germans. He, more than the other European ambassadors, has been part of negotiations between Germany and Namibia over the past two years. These negotiations led by Mr Ruprecht Polenz, the German special envoy and his Namibian counterpart, Dr. Zed Ngavirue, are intended to help the two countries come to a closure on that dark colonial chapter through: 1. The formal recognition by the Federal Republic of Germany of the genocide committed in its name against the people of Namibia, which it has to date not done. 2. The tendering of an of- Republic of Germany for the harm caused to Namibians through that act committed in the name of Germany. 3. The atonement by the Federal Republic of Germany for the untold harm done to the people of the Republic of Namibia. And 4. The acceptance by the people of Namibia of the apology and the atonement tendered by the Federal Republic of Germany to close the painful chapter and open the way for a “special partnership” between Namibia and Germany. I wish to point out to Schlaga that as Theo-Ben Gurirab, former Namibian prime minister and at the time, president of the UN General Assembly, noted at the World Conference against Racism in Durban in 2001, in the light of Germany’s refusal to acknowledge the genocide committed against Namibians, “Germany is the only country in the world that committed two genocides and endless war crimes in the past century” against so many nations, and that “had the world drawn the appropriate lessons from the 1st genocide of the 20th Century committed between 1904-1908 against Namibians, the Jews and the world would have been spared the butchery that ensued later under the Hitler regime”. We know from many published accounts that the atonement of billions USD, covering various categories such as reparations, loans, gifts, technical services, trained personnel and even military aid since 1950 contributed by Germany to the state of Israel, has helped Israel to industrialise and lift the Jewish people out of the state of poverty they found themselves in, after the end of the 2nd World War. No representative of the Federal Republic of Germany ever attempted to justify atonement payments to the state of Israel. Why does Germany do so in the instance of Namibia? Does Germany offer aid to Israel to make up for the losses suffered by the Jews on the basis of “per capita the highest development aid” as compared to other countries in the Middle East? Why then does Ambassador Schlaga want to make us believe this strange logic? The inferences one draws from these example when juxtaposed against our own struggle for reparations, are disturbing to say the least. It can only be construed as to mean that for Ambassador Schlaga, African lives and losses are worth less than the lives and losses of Jews. That is perhaps why no compelling moral obligation exists for Germany to atone for crimes of genocide against only insulting to the people of Namibia but a great affront to all of Africa. The Namibian people’s conciliatory stance should not be continuously abused. I for these reasons call on the Federal Republic of Germany to call the German ambassador to order. I also call on all of Namibia’s youth to work hard so as to ensure that Germany urgently meets its “compelling moral obligation” towards Namibians and African people by recognizing, apologizing and genocide of the 20th century committed in the name of Germany against the people of Namibia between 1904 and 1908. - This article is motivated by the recent discussions (as reported in the print media) to have taken place between our Head of State and the various heads of foreign missions to Namibia at the First House. These discussions were premised on the alignment of EU’s develop- National Development Plan (NDP5) and the Harambee Prosperity Plan (HPP). The Namibian newspaper reported that the meeting was aimed at taking stock of the type of aid Namibia has been receiving especially in the areas of education and agriculture. During the aforesaid meeting, various issues such as the genocide, the New Equitable Economic Empowerment Framework (NEEEF) as well as Namibia’s designation as a tax haven by the European Union (EU), were said to have been discussed. First the EU was believed to be contemplating withdrawing aid and possibly impose sanctions on Namibia due to her being listed as a tax haven. Secondly, EU was understood to keep Namibia under the listing as long as she had not acceded to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Convention. Another pertinent issue included Namibia’s handling of Export Processing Zones (EZPs). In this article, I will argue on how these alleged economic threats contradict the doctrines of sovereignty and comity as provided for within municipal and international law. I will also argue how Namibia as equal trade partner, as opposed to the aid, needs to align and ben- they are exported as a means to create jobs and have the socio-economic well-being of her people realised. I will also expound the position of the state during the trade agreements to be mindful of and hence patriotic towards the needs of its citizenry. I will conclude by supporting trade as opposed to aid as a tool to development. Established during 1961, the OECD has expanded its membership ever since. OECD is a multilateralism convention of which 34 countries are parties to. Fundamentally it aims to promote polices that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the globe. During 2000, the Namibia Press Agency (Nampa) reported Namibia’s desire to join the relevant multilateral convention. To date Namibia has not joined this multilateral convention and the status of its proposal for admission is not known. These alleged threats are primarily not only worrisome but oblivious of the important bilateral and multilateral links Namibia has with the international community, including the EU. To be crude yet factual, these alleged threats are repugnant with the sovereign ideals and principles of peaceful coexistence of nations upon which the principles of sovereignty should be recognised. In addition, they are incongruent with the doctrine of comity which prescribes its acceptance and recognition among the progressive ( ) among nations of the world. What strikes one the most is that these alleged economic threats have disregarded the perpetual co-existence of the international community as espoused within general principles of international law, various conventions, treaties and practices. These same principles are also recognised in the preamble as well as in Article 140 of the Namibian Constitution. In terms of the doctrine of sovereignty all nations ought to be equal in relation to each other. Hence the big brother attitude by the EU should this very doctrine of comity for all nations. The sovereignty as provided for within the preamble of our constitution and recognised by the general principles of international law, conventions, practices et al., serves no purpose if it is just there for decoration purposes. It needs an activation to help Namibia in her quest to implement her developmental objectives. When negotiating any agreements, the Namibian State should be sentient to the fears, doubts but also with wishes, hopes and aspirations of all Namibians. In others she should be responsive to the socio-economic status of her people the kind of thinking which should help her to translate her raw resources into useful commodities. And to achieve this, the state must sense of patriotism above all. A kind of negotiation that is motivated by self-development and self-interest will not translate into something tangible which would accrue With Namibia’s relatively small population, the inequality between the haves and the have-nots, remains a major pain in her side. The inequality remains so despite abundant resources that she is endowed with. Although there is a scarcity of water in general due to the global climatic phenomena, agriculture remains the backbone of this great nation. What Namibia needs to do is to develop her local industry as a matter of urgency.

New Era

New Era Newspaper Vol 22 No 167