By Alphons Kahuhu Koruhama, Kaokoland Descendant of Genocide.
Genocide is defined in the same terms as in the Genocide Convention in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 6)
Let us first contextualize the meaning of the word genocide as our points of departure. “The word “genocide” was first coined by Polish lawyer Raphäel Lemkin in 1944 in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. It consists of the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe, and the Latin suffix cide, meaning killing.
Lemkin developed the term partly in response to the Nazi policies of systematic murder of Jewish people during the Holocaust, but also in response to previous instances in history of targeted actions aimed at the destruction of particular groups of people.
Later on, Raphäel Lemkin led the campaign to have genocide recognized and codified as an international crime.” Henceforth, “The definition of the crime of genocide as contained in Article II of the Genocide Convention was the result of a negotiating process and reflects the compromise reached among United Nations Member States in 1948 at the time of drafting the Convention.
Genocide is defined in the same terms as in the Genocide Convention in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 6), as well as in the statutes of other international and hybrid jurisdictions. Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in the whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The governments agreed upon strict secrecy for the negotiations, is causing serious mental harms to the members of the group (affected communities) and that’s a genocide the government is involving itself according to Article 2 above. Rest assured we are negotiating genocide not aids, the Ovaherero and Nama genocide will be liked to the Armenian Genocide that holds a complicated place in world history. Which went for decades, dispersed throughout the globe, struggled with recognition.
Today, more than twenty countries officially acknowledge the atrocities as genocide. Uruguay was the first to officially recognize the genocide back in 1965. But the irony here is that our own government which voted in power by the Namibian people is denying this genocide and lower it to reconciliation and government aid not reparation which is a legal term. Therefore, our denied participation in this negotiation is clear denial of the two governments that they are not adhering to human rights andinternational law in their sovereign actions and in international relations.
The affected communities are not raising a political question but a question of human rights. According to their rights the affected communities have, that is enshrined in the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and that are laid out in core human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Asking for to have adequate participation on the negotiation tables and to freely choose a group’s representatives.
In addition, an apology as noted in the joint declaration and planned to be offered again in person, is totally rejected by the true patriot of affected communities due to misrepresentation of the affected communities. The joint declaration of the two governments is not only failing to resolve the Genocide issue, but its serious violations of International Humanitarian Law (UN Doc A/Res/60/147), which guarantees us (affected communities) for effective legal protection and the right to reparations in cases of human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law, which established in ICCPR Articles 1 and 25 and ICERD Article 5 are complemented in the fundamental right to self-determination and the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law.
My exhortation to these two lover’s that your undertakings are immaculate proves for us the victims, who are not represented by those suffering from the aftermath of your first genocide, that you’re giving us extraordinary prove to holds you accountable.
The aftermath of a genocide is, Violence, Death, Looting, Relocation, Memorialization, Exile, Economic downfall, Diminished productivity, Social Exclusion, division among the affected communities, self-hatred, and identity crisis just mentioned few.
This is crystal clear in some traditional Chiefs from the Ovaherero and Nama communities and their special advisor that they portray some of those symptoms. Therefore, the Germany and Namibian government capitalized on these symptoms by using them as their allies and convoy to sign consent on a bilateral joint declaration of reconciliation instead rehab them as package of reparation.
Let me put this on the record. The so-called governments’ agreements are unfounded until the genocide is
legally handled and the affected communities are fully involved. Subsequently, the joint statement of
bilateral reconciliation between the two governments and the conclusion that the husband (German Alphons Kahuhu Koruhama government) provided development assistance to the fiancée (Namibian government) for the next 30 years did not constitute support for the affected community but atrocities and joint declaration agreement to commit a second genocide.
In my conclusion the Namibian government was negotiating a different case here, and this was stipulated by the vice-president yesterday that they want to move towards the paths of reconciliation and reconstruction with projects aids they will received not reparation. This is not a give and takes issue.
It is a loss of life and dignity of our people. The Namibia government strategy in negotiating this issue sidelined affected communities, the special political committee constituted a chiefs forum to received feedback as sign of transparency. Hypocritical enough, the chiefs and the advisors of the so-called affected communities accept this set up.
For God sake what the hell? Really, these chiefs and their team are proof evidence of the aftermath of genocide that was stated above. Lastly, the negotiations are not in good faith for the communities that are truly affected but not those seeking self-gratifications, because there’s no reparation without addressing Ehi rotjizeero (ancestral land) and the 1986 demarcation(redline).
Why these two are important in reparation negotiations, because there are approximately 4,000 commercial farms in Namibia.
The descendants of Lieutenant General Lothar von Trotha own 80% of the shares. You can argue that there are other white communities, yes, they bought it from the Trotha family and not the Koruhama family and Swartbooi family? Dear couple (Namibia and Germany governments), we the descendant of the genocide from Kaokoland, where I am hailing from, and in the four corners of Namibia, the diasporas, Angola, South Africa, and Botswana stand in solidarity to reject your affair as reparation for our atrocities that was done and you are deliberately continue adding water to the fire. We know where our land is bare that in mind.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Africanian News.