Close This website uses modern features that are not supported by your browser. Click here for more information.
Please upgrade to a modern browser to view this website properly. Google Chrome Mozilla Firefox Opera Safari
your legal news hub
Sub Menu
Search

Search

Filter
Filter
Filter
A A A

Germany and Namibia grapple with the ‘G-word’

Publish date: 17 September 2018
Issue Number: 791
Diary: IBA Legalbrief Africa
Category: General

Human remains kept by German institutions as part of their colonial loot were repatriated to Namibia in August – the third time this has been done. And once again, the process was marred by serious friction, a clear illustration that both the German and Namibian governments have not come to terms with the problems involved. In an analysis in The Conversation, Reinhart Kössler and Henning Melber note that most human remains that had been taken from Namibia were from people killed during the genocide between 1904 and 1908, or related atrocities under German colonialism. ‘It’s not known how many such remains are still in German “collections” but their repatriation cannot be de-linked from the need by Germany to admit to its colonial, state-sponsored crime. And the former colonial power has yet to take what’s needed to provide redress. It took a full century after its colonial dreams of empire ended for Germany to accept – and then reluctantly – responsibility for the traumatic past. Only in July 2015 did the foreign ministry confirm that the term genocide was applicable to what happened in then “German South-West Africa”. The authors notes that reparation claims are pursued both by the Namibian government and separately by descendants of the main victim groups who feel they aren’t adequately represented in the bilateral negotiations between the governments. ‘The actions by agencies of Ovaherero and Nama include a widely observed court case in New York. The contested “G-word”, and its implications for reparation claims, were not the only sensitive issue. Before the handover of human remains was consummated, conflicts cropped up because of the approach taken by both governments.’

Full analysis on The Conversation site

We use cookies to give you a personalised experience that suits your online behaviour on our websites. Otherwise, you may click here to learn more, or learn how to block or disable cookies. Disabling cookies might cause you to experience difficulties on our website as some functionality relies on cookie information. You can change your mind at any time by visiting “Cookie Preferences”. Any personal data about you will be used as described in our Privacy Policy.