feels like Germany. And they say the Ger- mans lost Namibia (then called South West Africa) in 1915, during the First World War, when their troops surrendered to the South Africans under General Louis Botha. Te Treaty of Khorab, signed on 9 July 1915, ensured that South Africa, not Germany, had the last say in the national affairs of Namibia until independence in 1990. Yet, today, Namibia is so German in out-
look, as if the Germans never lost control at all. Most streets in Windhoek still carry German names (Bergerstrasse, Litzstrasse, Uhlandstrasse, you pinch yourself to make sure that you are not in Berlin). It must be added, however, that the government in power since 19 March 1990, run by the South West African People’s Organisation (SWAPO), the liberation movement turned
good work is soured by the fact that Namibia is African but not owned by Africans – even after 21 years of independence!”
party, has tried in the past two decades to change some of the street names to Afri- can ones. But they still have a lot to do in that regard. Some generous people attribute the or-
derliness in Namibia to the German influ- ence. Te City of Windhoek (the city coun- cil) is still largely run by the descendants of the German colonisers, who make sure the city works. And it works like clockwork, like a German machine. Te downside, however, is that native Namibians complain that the German descendants in the city councils discriminate against them in the award of jobs and contracts. “It is as if independence didn’t come,”
one black Namibian (as opposed to white Namibian) told New African. “It is racism wrapped in the colours of independence and reconciliation. We are supposed to be free but still under the thumb of the German descendants. It is a sad situation,” he added. Tis is where “the trouble with Namibia”
“The government’s
begins and sours all the good work done by the government in the last 21 years. Na- mibia is African but not owned by Africans – not even after 21 years of independence! It is a worrisome situation, and the ear-
lier the descendants of the German and South African colonisers who ruled the country (between them) from 1844 to 1990, and who now virtually own the country, realise the ticking time-bomb they are sit- ting on and its future consequences, the better it will be for them and the country! Te Western world, which likes to im-
pose economic and political sanctions on developing countries on behalf of their enclaves in those countries, should learn les- sons from the Zimbabwean experience and do something now to help the SWAPO gov- ernment and the recalcitrant descendants
mibian affairs, especially in the ownership of the country and its manifold resources, particularly the vexing land issue. Namibia is a huge country, the
34th largest in the world (total area: 318,696 sq miles or 825,418 sq km) but very sparsely populated. It has roughly two mil- lion people (both black and white). It is said that after Mongolia, Namibia is the second least-densely populated country in the world. White Namibians make up just 6% of the population but control over 90% of the land. A large part of the country is desert, but a rich desert, full of diamonds and uranium, which are mined and taken away by multinational companies who do not leave enough to empower native Na- mibians and their government. Te economy is dominated by agricul-
Namibia’s president, Hifikepunye Pohamba. His country faces the challenge of land reform
of the colonisers to diffuse the time-bomb in Namibia before it explodes catastrophi- cally, as it surely will some day. Te West can help now by facilitating the infusion of equity and justice into Na-
ture (the raising of cattle mostly, making the country a major beef exporter to Eu- rope), tourism, fishing (largely by foreign fleets) and mining – including gem dia- monds, gold, silver, base metals, and the king of all: uranium. Yet the unemployment rate in the coun-
try stands at a staggering 54% (in a popula- tion of 2 million!). As such, in 1999 one survey concluded that 75.9% of the population lives in poverty
New African June 2011 | 41
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100