Author: Aylin D. Miller

Will Germany ever recognize the Namibian genocide?
In April, Germany recognized the Armenian genocide. Germany, as the former colonial ruler of Namibia, has however not yet recognized the murder of tens of thousands of Namibians as a genocide. Many say the time is ripe.
On June 2, a group of German parliamentarians, led by Dagmar Freitag of the Social Democrats (SPD), will visit Namibia to meet MPs, civil society representatives and Namibian academics. For Israel Kaunatijke, a Herero living in Berlin, this is a chance to revive the discussion over the Namibian genocide. Germany, he says, should finally recognize that the slaughter of the Herero, Nama, Damara and San peoples of Namibia was in fact a genocide.

Israel Kaunatjike started the initiative ‘No amnesty for genocide’ in Germany.

The calls for an official recognition of a genocide has grown even stronger after the German parliament or Bundestag recognized the Armenian genocide in April this year. “They don’t take our issues seriously, that is discriminating and disrespectful,” Kaunatijke told DW. For years, his initiative “No amnesty on genocide” has been lobbying for the recognition of the crime against his ancestors.

A brutal past

According to the UN, German troops committed the first genocide of the 20th century in Namibia which was then known as German South-West Africa. In 1904, the German general Lothar vonThrotha used an uprising against the colonialists as pretext to slaughter around 70,000 Hereros, which amounted to about 80 percent of its population. The troops also wiped out half of the people of the Nama ethnic group. The UN officially called the killings a genocide as early as 1948. But Germany refuses to do so to this day.

In 2004, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Germany’s development minister at the time, took first steps to acknowledge Germany’s brutal role in Namibia. She attended a remembrance service in Namibia’s Waterberg and asked for forgiveness through a joint prayer. An official German apology was however not part of the package.

Herero women prepare to receive the bones that were kept in German museums for ‘research’ purposes.

Debates in German parliament

The German Bundestag has seen several attempts to demand such an apology, Wieczorek-Zeul told DW. In 2012, the Social Democrats party (SPD) and Green party tabled a proposal to officially recognize the genocide.

In response to this, the German government stated that the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of December 1948 could not be used retrospectively. Germany, the government argued, had moreover repeatedly admitted its part in the Namibian killings, offered continued cooperation and support to the Namibian government and was doing enough to compensate the victims. According to Kaunatijke, this however was not an admission of guilt, nor was it the deserved apology.

With the recent discussion over the Armenian genocide, the timing for a renewed debate could not be better, says ex-minister Wieczorek-Zeul . “You cannot just always ask others to recognize their guilt. You also have to admit your own guilt and give things their proper name,” she said.

“There is finally a real movement” which could lead to a renewed proposal in parliament, says Kaunatijke. On May 7, Germany’s first member of parliament of African origin, Karamba Diaby (SPD), called for a proper reflection on this chapter in history and for its place in German school and history books.

‘Apology now’ read the posters during a protest during the repatriation ceremony at Berlin’s Charite.

Lost homelands and stolen remains

Besides recognition, compensation should also be up for discussion, says Kaunatijke. Wieczorek-Zeul agrees. Germany’s reparation payments to the Namibian government are not specific enough, she says. “The people in the affected regions must be reached and their standard of living must be improved,” she argues. Today, many descendants of those murdered and displaced live in what is today Botswana, South Africa and Angola, Kaunatijke explains. They should be able to return to their homelands and receive compensation for losing their land.

According to Kaunatijke, Germany also ignores the fact that it carried out ‘racial research’ on the Herero. At the time, the ‘German Reich’, as it was then known, shipped the remains of deceased or murdered Herero to Germany for anatomical research. Around 3,000 bones are still stacked away in the archives of German museums today.

Germany repatriated several bones and skulls back to Nambia in 2011. According to Wieczorek-Zeul, this was however conducted in an entirely ignorant and insensitive manner by the German government. The event which took place at Berlin’s Charite hospital, was attended by Cornelia Pieper, the former Minister of State of Germany’s foreign office. Pieper, who also failed to voice a proper apology, was booed by the audience. In a second handing-over of remains in 2014 the ceremony was consequently confined to a much smaller audience.

DW recommends

Namibia celebrates 25 years of independence and democracy

25 years after independence Namibia is politically stable, but continues to depend on foreign aid. One possible issue on the agenda of the new President Hage Geingob is reparations from Germany. (20.03.2015)

Melber: ‘German apology for Namibia’s Herero atrocities could mean compensation’

Afro-German rights groups have once again called for an official apology for Germany’s colonial atrocities in Namibia. The demands were made during the handing over of remains of Herero victims to a Namibian delegation. (05.03.2014)

Germany refuses to acknowledge Herero massacres as genocide

The German parliament has thrown out an opposition motion calling on the government to acknowledge that a massacre committed by German troops in what is now Namibia more than 100 years ago was genocide. (23.03.2012)

Return of Namibian skulls highlights German colonial brutality

A Berlin hospital is returning to Namibia 20 skulls that were stolen by colonial Germany, after a brutal repression of an uprising at the start of the 20th century. Some say the gesture does not go far enough. (30.09.2011)
Date 01.06.2015

Author Theresa Krinninger/ so

Related Subjects Germany

Keywords Germany, Namibia, genocide, Herero, Nama
June 3, 2015
FIFA Boss Could Be Questioned ‘Under Arrest’

The US investigation into football corruption could pose a “real threat” to Sepp Blatter, a former legal chief tells Sky News.

The former Director of Public Prosecutions has told Sky News he expects Sepp Blatter will be questioned as part of the US investigation into corruption – possibly under arrest.

Mr Blatter won a fifth term as FIFA president on Friday despite widespread calls for him to resign after seven officials were arrested last week in Zurich on a US warrant.

The arrests were connected to a bribery scandal being investigated by American, Swiss and other law enforcement agencies.

Lord Macdonald told Sky’s Murnaghan programme: “I think the real threat to Mr Blatter doesn’t come from the Swiss, it comes from the US, their anti-racketeering legislation and co-operating accomplices.

“Jack Warner, the FIFA man who has been arrested in Trinidad, has already said to the press ‘if I’m going down, why isn’t he being arrested as well?’ referring to Mr Blatter.

“I think the risk to Mr Blatter is this developing investigation in Washington. I think the Americans will want to talk to Mr Blatter and they may do it under arrest.”

It comes as Labour urged David Cameron to hold an emergency summit over FIFA corruption claims to ensure Britain does not “idly stand by”.

Shadow culture secretary Chris Bryant wants politicians, the English Football Association, British sponsors and broadcasters to establish a “common position” and give “serious consideration” to withdrawing from all future FIFA competitions.

In the letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Bryant said Britain “cannot just be commentators or spectators” amid calls to boycott the World Cup after Mr Blatter was re-elected as leader despite the arrests.

A total of 14 people connected to football – including the seven FIFA officials arrested in Zurich – have been indicted on corruption charges by the US.

Mr Blatter is not named in the US indictment and denies any personal involvement in alleged acts of bribery.

During a news conference in Switzerland on Saturday, he was asked by Sky News if he authorised a $10m bribe to the disgraced official Jack Warner.

“Definitely that’s not me. I have no $10m,” Mr Blatter replied.

The allegation is contained in the US indictment which states, “a high-ranking FIFA official caused payments… totalling 10 million – to be wired from a FIFA account in Switzerland to a Bank of America correspondent account in New York … controlled by Jack Warner”.

When Mr Blatter was asked if he was worried about being arrested in the corruption investigation, he responded curtly: “Arrested for what? Next question.” Meanwhile, Barclays has launched an internal review into whether it was used for illegal payments by FIFA officials, a source told AFP news agency.

Meanwhile, Barclays has launched an internal review into whether it was used for illegal payments by FIFA officials, a source told AFP news agency.

It was one of the three banks with British headquarters named in the US indictment.

Another, Standard Chartered, said on Friday: “We are aware that two payments cleared by Standard Chartered are mentioned in the indictment. We are looking into those payments.”

The third named bank, HSBC, has so far declined to comment.

It comes after Prince William urged FIFA to reform and show “it can represent the interests of fair play”.

The Duke of Cambridge, who is president of the Football Association, has asked sponsors to press for changes at FIFA.

FA chairman Greg Dyke has said Britain will not be able to make a stand against FIFA without wider support.

“Putting pressure on Sepp Blatter is pretty impossible,” he told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

“But putting pressure on other footballing nations and putting pressure on sponsors is a good idea, I think.”

June 1, 2015
Lawyers’ daughter and Scotland Yard detective charged for Spying, Grooming and Selling women for sex in high class vice ring
According to Daily Mail, Lawyers’ daughter and Scotland Yard detective deny grooming and selling women for sex in high class vice ring
- Beatrice Nokes allegedly ran a prostitute ring in Central London last year
- She is suspected of grooming three women to sell their bodies for sex
- Nokes is the daughter of two highly experienced legal professionals
- She allegedly organised the sex ring with Met police officer Daniel Williams
- He also faces charges of voyeurism and concealing profits in his chimney
The student daughter of two respected solicitors and a Scotland Yard detective have denied grooming and selling women for sex through an upmarket vice ring in central London.

Beatrice Nokes and Det Con Daniel Williams appeared in court on Friday, charged with allegedly offering three women through the high class ring between June and October last year.

Williams is also accused of a series of further crimes – including allegedly spying on unsuspecting hotel guests during a 10-month voyeurism spree while both on and off duty.

The 21-year-old UCL student appeared in court today dressed in a black mini skirt, white shirt and wedge heel black boots.

She denied three counts of controlling or inciting prostitution for gain and shook her head as she denied the charges.

The detective denied three charges of causing or inciting prostitution for gain, a single charge of controlling prostitution for gain and two offences of misconduct in a public office.
May 30, 2015
The Turkish President’s Palace Is Ruled ‘Illegal’

by Louise Turner

Turkeys top administrative court has declared the construction of a $615-million, 1,150-room palace for the Turkish President, as illegal.Press TV report:

Ankara’s Fifth Administrative Court overturned a previous ruling that permitted an exception to build “White Palace” on protected land, UPI reported on Wednesday. Erdogan moved into the luxurious residence last year.

The palace was built in an area of 300,000 square meters in an environmentally protected nature preserve called the Ataturk Forest Farm.

According to Turkey’s Chamber of Architects, following the overturning the construction of the palace is now deemed illegal.

“The construction plans, the protection board’s decisions, and the construction licenses, which allowed the illegal construction are completely unlawful at the moment after this verdict,” said a Chamber of Architects statement.

During the construction of the palace various legal petitions were circulated, all of which noted that the palace was being built on protected ground.

A cultural center, another presidential residence, and some other buildings are also slated for construction at the site but it is still unclear if the recent court ruling will affect the additional construction as the president’s office has denied all claims on the ruling via a statement released on Wednesday.

According to the Turkish daily Today’s Zaman, a Turkish court ordered last year that the construction of the palace be halted, but then-Prime Minister Erdogan challenged the court decision, saying, “If they have the power, let them destroy it.”

yournewswire.com

May 29, 2015
Alabama Senate Approves Bill to Abolish Marriage Licensing

The battle has been raging over redefining marriage in Alabama, as the state’s constitution declares marriage to be between a man and a woman. However, federal courts are attempting to force the state to issue marriage licenses to those practicing sodomy. In an attempt to stop probate judges from issuing licenses arbitrarily, the Alabama Senate passes bill by a vote of 22-3 without having to obtain permission from a government official.

Senate Bill 377, a bill which would end marriage licensing and replace it with a contract process, was approved by the Alabama Senate on May 19.

According to the text of the bill, it would abolish the requirement to obtain a marriage license from the judge of probate.

“This bill would provide that marriage would be entered into by simple contract, would specify the information required to be included in the contract of marriage, would specify that each party entering into a contract of marriage would submit a properly executed contract to the judge of probate for recording, and would require the judge of probate to forward a copy of the contract of marriage to the Office of Vital Statistics,” reads the synopsis of the bill.

The synopsis then adds, “This bill would also authorize the judge of probate to collect a fee for recording the contract of marriage. This bill would provide that the fee currently collected by the judge of probate and paid to the district attorney upon issuance would be paid when the marriage contract is presented for recording. This bill would provide for an additional fee to be paid to the General Fund.”

This does not open up marriage for same-sex couples. According to the legislation:

Effective July 1, 2015, the only requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties 16 who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter into a contract of marriage as provided herein.

(b) A contract to be married shall contain the 19 following minimum information:

(1) The names of the parties.

(2) A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married.

(3) A statement that the parties voluntarily and 24 based on each parties’ own freewill enter into a marriage.

(4) The signatures of the parties.

Keep in mind that in the State of Alabama it is still illegal for those practicing sodomy to engage in marriage.

Senator Greg Albritton (R-Bay Minette), who introduced the bill said, “The purpose of Senate Bill 377 is to bring order out of chaos.”

“The sanctity of marriage cannot be sanctified by government of men,” Albritton said. “That is where we have gotten ourselves in trouble.”

“When you invite the state into those matters of personal or religious import, it creates difficulties,” he added. “Go back long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. Early twentieth century, if you go back and look and try to find marriage licenses for your grandparents or great grandparents, you won’t find it. What you will find instead is where people have come in and recorded when a marriage has occurred.”

In other words, Albritton wants the issue of marriage back in the hands of the Church. While the contract portion would be recognized legally, the requirements for marriage to be handled lawfully under the umbrella of the Church would remain intact.

Though Albritton hinted at a possible illegal ruling by the Supreme Court as being valid and not affecting the legislation, the question that needs to come to the forefront in all of this is why the state is issuing marriage licenses in the first place. Do your homework and you’ll discover that a racial component is part of that history. The second question that should be raised is why any state would sit idly by and wait on the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. Governors with any understanding and backbone would currently be declaring that they have no constitutional authority to rule in the matter and should simply warn the judge’s that no matter what their decision was, it was not within the purview of their jurisdiction to rule on the measure. Finally, it should be asked why a fee continues to be associated, and not just associated, but increased. According to Albritton, it was “to raise support.”

Though the bill itself does not define marriage, the Alabama constitution does. Amendment 774, adopted to the constitution in 2006 reads:

(a) This amendment shall be known and may be cited as the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.

(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.

(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.

(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.

(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.

(f) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any common law marriage of parties of the same sex.

(g) A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage.

Chief Justice Roy Moore has told state judges not to disregard the ruling of a federal court on Alabama’s constitution and marriage. He has made the case for what marriage is and where the right to marriage comes from, God. Moore encouraged Governor Robert Bentley to resist federal tyranny in the matter, but Bentley seems to be more geared towards political correctness than he does the truth about rights, marriage and his duty to the people of Alabama.

Led by Justice Moore, the Alabama Supreme Court also put a halt to illegal same-sex “marriages” across the state back in March.

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Read more at

May 28, 2015
An Imam, a Mercedes and Erdogan’s Election Gambit

stratfor

May 28, 2015 | 00:20 GMT

A story involving an imam, the pope and a Mercedes-Benz may sound like the start of a bad joke, but this is a true story that reveals a great deal about Turkey’s political path with just 10 days to go before elections.

The tale began around six months ago, when Turkish newspaper Hurriyet uncovered a budget that revealed state funds were being used to buy the head of Turkey’s Presidency of Religious Affairs an S500 Mercedes-Benz worth $385,000. The story didn’t gather steam until early May, in the thick of Turkey’s election season, when Turkey’s opposition parties took turns pouncing on President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government for its exorbitant spending habits. The would-be owner of the flashy car, Mehmet Gormez, opted to escape the controversy by sheepishly declaring that he would return the car and “set an example.”

But Erdogan saw an opportunity of his own in making Gormez an example. Last Thursday, Erdogan swept away the criticism and declared that his office will provide the cleric with an armored Mercedes. And if that was not enough fuel to add to the fire, Erdogan said in a television interview on May 26 that he would give Gormez a private jet. After all, the president coyly explained, the pope “has a private jet, private cars and armored vehicles. That’s the situation at the Vatican, and our religious leader will take scheduled flights?”
What is a Geopolitical Diary? George Friedman Explains.
Never mind that the Vatican spent most of Wednesday painstakingly calling up news agencies to clarify the populist credentials of Pope Francis, who apparently has no problem flying commercial and putters around Vatican City in a Ford Focus. What matters here is the message that Erdogan is broadcasting — not to bewilder foreign media and not to rile up his opposition, but to solidify support within his core constituency.

Remember what Erdogan represents: He is the leader of a more pious class whose roots are mostly in Anatolia. It is a class that has spent most of Turkey’s history sidelined from power while a secular, military-backed elite dominated the country’s institutions and political economy from their stronghold around the Sea of Marmara. Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party and its predecessors neutralized the political clout of the military, raising a new business class and stacking institutions — including ministries, courts, newspaper agencies and schools — with allies that looked first and foremost to Erdogan as their patron. Without Erdogan in power, the perks of being a member of Erdogan’s patronage network would be lost. To these constituents, Erdogan’s message is quite clear: If you are my ally, you will be taken care of.

The message also goes beyond Erdogan’s flamboyant tactics in trying to preserve a cult of personality around his presidency. The victim of this controversy, the Presidency of Religious Affairs, has an important history. The Presidency, or “Diyanet,” was established in the early years of the republic in 1928. At the time, Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, was crafting a strategy to manage religion in the new state. In carving a state out of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious empire, Ataturk understood that religion had to play some role in distinguishing Turkish citizens from non-Muslims. But Ataturk also saw the dangers of religion drawing the state back toward pan-Islamic ambitions, risking another collapse of the state should those far-flung ambitions once again overwhelm the center.

Ataturk thus tried to strike a balance. He took the radical steps of banning the caliphate, closing down religious schools and removing a clause from the constitution saying that “Islam is the religion of the republic.” At the same time, he created the Presidency of Religious Affairs to manage religion on the state’s terms. Rather than separate mosque and state, Ataturk sought to institutionalize a state-run version of Islam.

For the last dozen years, Erdogan has been trying to rewrite Ataturk’s script for the republic. Religion would no longer be tamed by the state; it would define the state once again. This position has alienated half of the country, but has at the same time given hope to another half who deeply identify with their religion and see Turkey as the deserved leader and model of the Islamic world.

The June 7 election will tell us just how wide this fissure in Turkey’s identity politics is. What may seem like foolish political tactics to many could well translate into an astute political strategy by a man who has managed to win the hearts and minds of millions of Turks.

At the same time, Erdogan is undoubtedly taking a risk. He came into power as the savior for the Anatolian masses, liberating the country from what he characterized as an obsolete and corrupted elite. Turkey’s pugnacious president wants his followers to know that any ally of Erdogan will be protected and live the good life. But the economy is on shaky ground, the party’s pan-Islamic foreign policy is exposing the country’s vulnerabilities, and Erdogan’s populist credentials are being questioned in light of his unapologetically lavish spending. We see the logic. We also see the risk. At least for Erdogan, this is a gamble worth taking.

May 28, 2015