Ghana’s
water availability figure of about 40,000 barrels for each person a year in
1960, going by Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) figures, has dwindled to
about 10,178 barrels annually in 2013.
This
means there has been a whopping reduction of about 60 per cent of water that is
available to every Ghanaian in the spate of 53 years.
The
reduction also translates from 110 barrels daily for each person as pertained
in 1960 when the population was 6.5 million, to 48 barrels in 2013, if the
available water in the country were to be shared equally among the about 25
million current Ghanaian population.
These
revelations were made by Mr Minta A Aboagye, a former Director of Water at the
Water Directorate of the Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing in
Accra.
Speaking
at the launch of the first ever Ghana WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene)
Awards whose first edition is slated for 2014, Mr Minta Aboagye said the most
worrying aspect of the situation was what it would be in the next 35 years (in
2050), when Ghana’s population is projected to have hit 40 million.
“By
then if the phenomenon of climate change has not wreaked havoc and our annual
renewable water remains the same, the yearly per capita water availability will
diminish to only 1,330m3 or 292,600 gallons,” he said.
According
to Mr Aboagye, when that happens the daily rationing that would be available to
each Ghanaian would be 3.64m3 or just 801 gallons a day equivalent to about 18
barrels.
“This
is a frightening situation considering the fact that currently the country is
classified as water-stressed,” the former Director of Water said.
Relating
the country’s dire water situation to the significance of the awards, Mr
Aboagye said; “Indeed we all know the causative issues. The trees that provide
forest cover and play an essential role in the hydrological cycle in the
replenishment of our water resources has and are still being decimated with
nonchalant abandon, while the land itself which is the recipient of the rains
that run off to fill our streams, rivers and lakes is seriously violated with
all forms of degradation, thus affecting our sources of water supply.
“We
all pretend nothing is happening, turn our eyes the other way, then throw up
our hands in despair as if nothing can be done about it and keep complaining to
ourselves. But the situation can be reversed through our own initiatives and
efforts, individually and collectively. And those who champion the cause of the
reversal must be recognised and celebrated in order to sustain the process and
to serve as a beacon of hope for the future,” he stated.
Regarding
Sanitation, Mr Aboagye said although the challenges were daunting there was the
need to find credible ways of motivating innovators and those whose policies
had given a boost to ensuring clean and hygienic environment.
The
Ghana WASH awards have been instituted by the Ghana Country Water Partnership
(GCWP), the local chapter of the Global Water Partnership (GWP), an
organisation founded in 1996 by the World Bank, the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
(SIDA), to foster integrated water resource management (IWRM).
According
to Chairman for GCWP, Mr Nii Boi Ayibotele, the awards is aimed at recognising
the contributions made so far in the WASH sector, in order to motivate and
promote innovative interventions to tackle the challenges in the sector.
It
is also meant to showcase the role the private sector is playing by forging
partnerships among themselves and with government to achieve results.
The
annual awards would recognise individuals, organisations, academicians,
research scientists; organised groups, non-governmental organisations as well
as the media among others, for their innovative roles in advancing WASH in the
country.
Selection
for the awards would be based on nominations, which would be vetted by a
purposely selected committee that would serve as a jury.
Mr
Ayibotele however said the actual component of the awards would be determined
by a committee that would be put together to set out the criteria and plan the
event.
Editorial
WATER
In
1960 every Ghanaian had access to atleast 40,000 barrels of water yearly.
This
figure has dropped to as low as 10,178 barrels and the fear is that as the
years roll on Ghanaians will have less and less access to water.
It is also a fact that water is becoming more
and more expensive.
Indeed
expensive for ordinary citizens who are struggling to pay for rent, electricity, transport and other
necessities.
The Insight accepts that water is life and
access to it is a fundamental human right.
We
call upon the government to do all in its power to ensure that all citizens can
have portable water.
If Government did this, the amount of money
spent on providing healthcare would be reduced and citizens will be healthy
enough to contribute their quota to the national development effort.
Everybody
needs good water and it is an obligation for government to provide it.
MARTIN AMIDU SPEAKS
 |
| Mr Martin Amidu |
My attention was
attracted to the peacefmonline.com banner headline – “Prez Mahama Orders:
Retrieve €25M, US$325k from Waterville, Isofoton….Suspend Gyeeda Payments” – on
the 15th November 2013. Upon reading the full text of the statement attributed
to the President I formed the distinctive impression that the Government was
trying to expropriate the orders of the Supreme Court in the Waterville and
Isofoton cases as part of its anti-corruption campaign agenda.
The
lumping of the execution of the judgments and orders of the Supreme Court in
the Waterville and Isofoton declarations with suspected misappropriations and
misapplications of public funds under this very Government in the contracts
with SADA, GYEEDA, and the Ghana Revenue Authority smacks of opportunism,
propaganda and downright disingenuity. It is not for the President or his
Government to decide whether or not to retrieve the monies involved in the
deliberate breaches of the Constitution perpetrated by the very Government in
favour of its foreign friends in Waterville and Isofoton.
The
Supreme Court has made those conclusive declarations, orders and directions
already. The grave consequences for the President and the Government should
they fail to obey and execute the orders and directions of the Supreme Court
are clearly spelt out in articles 2(2), (3) and (4) of the Constitution.
There
is a duty imposed by the Constitution upon the President as the repository of
the executive power, and upon Waterville and Isofoton as parties to the case to
duly obey and carry out the terms of the Supreme Court’s orders and directions
in the two cases. The failure of the President in particular to ensure the
execution of the judgments in the Waterville and Isofoton cases could open him
up to charges of high crime under the Constitution and constitute grounds for
his removal from office.
It
is my contention that for anybody who is under such a burdensome duty to
execute judgments brought about willfully and intentionally by his own
Government, to turn round and claim to be pursuing an anti-corruption agenda is
to engage in mere propaganda, and opportunism par excellence.
Why
is the Government not pursuing an anti-corruption agenda with the residual
matters left by the Waterville and Isofoton cases? Austro-Invest Management
Services Limited (whose lawyer was Lithur Brew & Co) was owned by Raymond
Smith who also owns the Ghanaian company, M-Powapak, with his wife. When
Austro-Invest had not been registered as an external company in Ghana, and had
been liquidated in Switzerland to avoid liability in the Waterville related
cases, Lithur, Brew & Co. were litigating on their behalf in the High
Courts of Justice in Ghana contrary to law. Is Interpol unable to get Mr.
Raymond Smith because of the alleged association of Lithur Brew & Co with
the Government of Ghana in the management of three Ministries?
Secondly,
is the Government still unaware of the Ministers of its Government implicated
in the gargantuan crimes I referred to on 12th January 2012 and the public
officers who actively facilitated the unconstitutional payments to Waterville
and Isofoton?
Is
the President saying that he is not aware that only one month after the
Attorney-General appointed a firm of forensic auditors to investigate whether
or not the Government had a contract with Isofoton, the Deputy Attorney General
signed a settlement with Isofoton and the Attorney General followed up with instruction
to Ministry of Finance for payment?
The
Government paid over US$400,000.00 for the work that was done by the Auditors
who opined in January 2011 that the Government had no contract with Isofoton.
How are the people of Ghana going to have the money, wasted in engaging the
Auditors without waiting for their report before settling the Isofoton case,
repaid to the consolidated fund?
I
will not be surprised when Ghanaians are told that the above are matters
waiting for the Sole Commissioner on Judgment Debts to deal with. But that is
precisely where the propaganda and deception about fighting corruption lies.
What
prevented the Government through the Attorney General from directing the
Commissioner/CID to investigate and have these matters prosecuted before the
Sole Commissioner’s report comes out somewhere next year?
The
Government is not proactive in this respect because it is not serious about
fighting corruption. The Government knows that the Sole Commissioner’s report
when it is submitted will take not less than one year for the gestation period
to ripen and give persons adversely affected the right to appeal to the Court
of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court.
This
process could take several years to go through the Court process after the Sole
Commissioner’s report. Ghanaians will with the effusion of time forget all
about the Sole Commissioner’s report.
Corruption
will go on as usual. By this stratagem of this Government people bleeding this
nation through bribery and corruption will go off the hook.
This
is why the Government’s promise to implement the Sole Commissioner’s report is
hollow, looked at from the conditions precedent for this Government to be able
to implement such constitutional reports.
I
am amazed that the Government is expecting “the support and involvement of all
Ghanaians” - “to sustain this fight against corruption”.
How
can a citizenry show support and involvement in the fight against corruption
when the President who utters these supposedly noble words is not known to
encourage those who have already shown the way in the fight against corruption
upon the success of their endeavours?
When
Government uses the power at its disposal to victimize and continue to
victimize those who have and still fight against corruption, abuse of power and
impunity, such exhortations on public occasions looks like self-serving
propaganda.
Walk
your talk, Mr. President or forget about fighting corruption and impunity.
The
President in his written speech appears to pretend that there exists in Ghana
today “various independent Anti-Corruption and Governance institutions,
including CHRAJ, EOCO etc…”
Unfortunately
my experience with EOCO and CHRAJ as presently constituted when I was in
Government does not bear this out.
These
institutions were established to be independent and impartial in the execution
of their duties to all Ghanaians without political colouration.
Our
former Ambassador’s daughter is sitting on one of the provable corruption cases
in which I provided her all the material evidence from the United Kingdom; and
the EOCO is known to me to chicken out of water tight criminal cases when it
detects the involvement of Government or its associates.
The
Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Ghana Police Service is
apolitical and does an excellent job without regime protection as the
others.
I
saw the politicisation of EOCO and CHRAJ as Minister for the Interior, and the
Attorney General; and no change has taken place there to convince me of their
independence and impartiality.
The
problem lies not with the principle of establishing an institution but more
with the integrity and trustworthiness of the individuals elected or appointed
to lead it. The same goes for a nation under its Constitution.
The
fight against corruption, abuse of power and impunity must be proactive and not
reactive. We do not need to wait to be charged with poor leadership in fighting
it before reacting in seeking to show leadership where we had all the
opportunity but failed to be proactive.
Good
leaders act; they do not wait to react to situations. Ghanaians will have
difficulty electing another President from the geo-political north which the
President and myself come from for more than thirty years after he has left
office should this President fail to fight corruption, abuse of office and
impunity in obedience to our ancestors and God during his tenure of office.
Mark my words!
Why South Africa Loves Cuba
 |
| Commandante Fidel Castro |
By
Piero
Gleijeses
While
the American news media recently focused on “the handshake” between President
Obama and Raúl Castro, it is worth pondering why the organizers of Nelson
Mandela’s memorial service invited Raúl Castro to be one of only six foreign
leaders—of the ninety-one in attendance—to speak at the ceremony. Not only was
Raúl Castro accorded that honor, but he also received by far the warmest
introduction: "We now will get an address from a tiny island, an island of
people who liberated us ... the people of Cuba," the chairperson of the
African National Congress (ANC) said. Such words echo what Mandela himself said
when he visited Cuba in 1991: “We come here with a sense of the great debt that
is owed the people of Cuba ... What other country can point to a record of
greater selflessness than Cuba has displayed in its relations to Africa?”
Many
factors led to the demise of apartheid. The white South African government was
defeated not just by the power of Mandela, the courage of the South African
people, or the worldwide movement to impose sanctions. It was also brought down
by the defeat of the South African military in Angola. This explains the
prominence of Raúl Castro at the memorial service: it was Cuban troops that
humiliated the South African army. In the 1970s and 1980s, Cuba changed the
course of history in southern Africa despite the best efforts of the United
States to prevent it.
In
October 1975, the South Africans, encouraged by the Gerald Ford administration,
invaded Angola to crush the leftwing Popular Movement for the Liberation of
Angola (MPLA). They would have succeeded had not 36,000 Cuban soldiers suddenly
poured into Angola.
By
April 1976, the Cubans had pushed the South Africans out.
As
the CIA noted, Castro had not consulted Moscow before sending his
troops (as is clear from later tense meetings with the Soviet leadership
in the 1980s.) The Cubans, Kissinger confirmed in his memoirs, had
confronted the Soviets with a fait accompli. Fidel
Castro understood that the victory of Pretoria (with Washington in the wings)
would have tightened the grip of white domination over the people of southern
Africa. It was a defining moment: Castro sent troops to Angola because of his
commitment to what he has called “the most beautiful cause,” the struggle
against apartheid. As Kissinger observed later, Castro “was probably the most
genuine revolutionary leader then in power.”
The
tidal wave unleashed by the Cuban victory in Angola washed over South Africa.
“Black Africa is riding the crest of a wave generated by the Cuban success in
Angola,” noted theWorld, South Africa’s major black
newspaper. “Black Africa is tasting the heady wine of the possibility of
realizing the dream of total liberation.” Mandela later recalled hearing about
the Cuban victory in Angola while he was incarcerated on Robben Island. “I was
in prison when I first heard of the massive aid that the internationalist Cuban
troops were giving to the people of Angola. ... We in Africa are accustomed to
being the victims of countries that want to grab our territory or subvert our
sovereignty. In all the history of Africa this is the only time a foreign
people has risen up to defend one of our countries.”
Pretoria,
however, had not given up: even after retreating from the Cubans, it hoped to
topple Angola's MPLA government. Cuban troops remained in Angola to protect it
from another South African invasion. Even the CIA conceded that they were
“necessary to preserve Angolan independence.” In addition, the Cubans trained ANC guerrillas as well as SWAPO rebels,
who were fighting for the independence of Namibia from the South Africans who
illegally occupied it.
From
1981 to 1987, the South Africans launched bruising invasions of southern
Angola. It was a stalemate—until November 1987, when Castro decided to push the
South Africans out of the country once and for all. His decision was triggered by the fact that the South African army
had cornered the best units of the Angolan army in the southern
Angolan town of Cuito Cuanavale. And his decision was made possible by the Iran
Contra scandal rocking Washington. Until the Iran-Contra scandal exploded in
late 1986, weakening and distracting the Reagan administration, the Cubans had
feared that the United States might launch an attack on their homeland. They
had therefore been unwilling to deplete their stocks of weapons. But Iran
Contra defanged Reagan, and freed Castro to send Cuba's best planes, pilots,
and antiaircraft weapons to Angola. His strategy was to break the South African
offensive against Cuito Cuanavale in the southeast and then attack in the
southwest, “like a boxer who with his left hand blocks the blow and with his
right—strikes.”
On
March 23, 1988, the South Africans launched their last major attack against
Cuito Cuanavale. It was an abject failure. The US Joint Chiefs of Staff noted, “The war in Angola has taken a dramatic and—as
far as the South Africans are concerned—an undesirable turn.”
The
Cubans' left hand had blocked the South African blow while their right hand was
preparing to strike: powerful Cuban columns were moving towards the Namibian
border, pushing the South Africans back. Cuban MIG-23s began to fly over
northern Namibia. US and South African documents prove that the Cubans gained
the upper hand in Angola. The Cubans demanded that Pretoria withdraw
unconditionally from Angola and allow UN-supervised elections in Namibia. The
US Joint Chiefs of Staff warned that if South Africa refused, the Cubans were
in a position “to launch a well-supported offensive into Namibia.” The South
Africans acknowledged their dilemma: if they refused the Cuban demands, they
ran “the very real risk of becoming involved in a full-scale conventional war
with the Cubans, the results of which are potentially disastrous.” The South
African military was grim: “We must do the utmost to avoid a confrontation.”
Pretoria
capitulated. It accepted the Cubans’ demands and withdrew unconditionally from
Angola and agreed to UN supervised elections in Namibia, which SWAPO won.
The
Cuban victory reverberated beyond Namibia and Angola. In the words of Nelson
Mandela, the Cuban victory “destroyed the myth of the invincibility of the
white oppressor ... [and] inspired the fighting masses of South Africa ...
Cuito Cuanavale was the turning point for the liberation of our continent—and
of my people—from the scourge of apartheid.”
Piero
Gleijeses is a professor of American foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins School
of Advanced International Studies. All quotes from the above article are drawn
from his latest book: Visions of Freedom: Havana, Washington, Pretoria and the Struggle
for Southern Africa, 1976-
Will
Namibian bones haunt Germans forever?
By
Kwame Opoku
Contempt
for Africans is still so strong in Germany that the government sees no point in
returning to Namibia the human remains of the massacred Herero and Nama
peoples. Further, Germany is unwilling to offer an apology and compensation
Surviving Herero returning starved from the Omaheke desert where they had been driven by German troops after the battle at Waterberg; two women in front were unable to stand
The last time we dealt with Namibian human remains in Germany, we suggested, contrary to the opinion of some, that the recent return of Namibian human remains by Germany was not the beginning of the end of the issue and definitely not the end of the question. [2] There are far too many important issues that have not yet been settled or dealt with in such a way as to prepare the way for an eventual termination of demands. German officialdom has not shown itself prepared or willing to render adequate apology for the evil acts of the notorious German colonial troops against the Herero and the Nama in what has been described as the first genocide of the 20th century, an epoch to be distinguished by several genocides. Above all, the German state has not yet accepted the need to pay compensation for the incalculable damage and suffering inflicted on the Herero and Nama, including the destruction of their cattle and other property as well as for unpaid labour.
cc MG
Remembrance of Von Trotha’s command to annihilate the Herero and Nama does not seem to indicate to the German government a more sensitive approach to the whole matter and to meet the Namibian delegation with the highest representation of the German state. The whole matter of returning Namibian human remains was dealt with as normal business with a junior minister receiving the descendants of the massacred nations. The Secretary of State even left before the Namibian delegation had made its statement. The official German conduct was a model of incivility. What makes some of us very sad is that the German government knows the right thing to do. It has done it for victims and descendants of victims of Nazi oppression but these were not Africans. One can only surmise that the aversion against Africans and the contempt for African peoples are still so strong and embedded that the German government cannot bring itself to do for Namibians what it has done for others. The German NGOs had proposed more sensitive approaches.
The German Left Party and other members of the German parliament took up recently the issue of Namibian human remains and asked the German Federal Government certain pertinent questions[3] and the government provided its answers. [4] We do not intend to repeat here the basic arguments and comments on the government’s approach to this matter. We highlight a few points we found significant in this exchange of view between the German government and the questioners. In the text of both the government and the questioners, the word ‘ownership’ is used. We believe in this context, the concept of ‘ownership’ is not appropriate insofar as one cannot own a person, his or her body or the human remains. One could have in his control human remains. We have however kept the word ‘owner’ in order not to change too much the original texts and their translations.
1. The questioners suspected the German government of wanting to shirk its responsibility in the matter of the Namibian human remains by transferring the remains to other institutions (over which it has no direct control) so that in future demanders of restitution will be directed to address their requests to those institutions. The Federal Government was directly asked to confirm that ‘part of the collections of human remains from former German colonies and other overseas territories previously held by the Berlin Museum of Medical History at the Charité has, since 2011 been transferred to the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation(SPK), in which the Federal Government has a major say that the objects would be under federal ‘ownership’. The Government’s answer is that the humans collection at the Berlin Museum of Medical History at the Charite Hospital is currently being managed by the Museum of Prehistory and Early History (MVF), part of the National Museums in Berlin (SMB) to protect the remains from decay. Efforts were being made to find a ‘solution that would ensure that the collection is appropriately housed and curated. There is no firm evidence at present that the collection consists of or contains any human remains obtained or acquired in an ethically problematical manner in former German colonies or overseas territories’.
The German government seems to be saying that in the absence of direct and concrete proof, it must be assumed that the human remains at the Charité that have now been transferred to Museum of Prehistory and Early history, have not been acquired in an unethical manner from the colonies. But given German history in the matter of acquisition of human remains, it would seem to us that there should be a presumption that unless it can be established that human remains have been acquired from elsewhere, that the remains were acquired from the German colonies. We recall the enthusiasm of academics such as Felix von Luschan for human remains. There were also the various dubious ‘scientific’ experiments by people such as the notorious Dr.Ernst Fischer on Namibians and others.
2. Asked why the SPK has not assumed ‘ownership’ of the Charite Hospitals collection of human remains from Namibia and Australia as well, the Government answered that the Charité has a responsibility for investigating human remains now known to be ethically problematic. ‘The human remains originating in the Republic of Namibia and Australia are not, and have never been, available for management by the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation(SPK).’
3. To the question as to what extent the Federal Government has informed countries and peoples of origin of the remains and the German public that part of the ‘ownership’ of collections of the Charité have been transferred to the SPK, and that henceforth demands for restitution can be addressed directly to the Government, the Government’s answer was simple: ‘The Museum of Prehistory and Early History (MVF) and the National Museums in Berlin (SMB) are both part of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation (SPK’. This is a very surprising answer. One would have thought that the Government has a duty to inform the German public on matters which had been intensively discussed among the German public and media. Clearly peoples and countries where the human remains came from or could have come from deserve as a matter of respect to be informed when human remains are being transferred from one place to another. There seems to be hear again a lack of sensitivity.
4. To the related question why the German public and peoples and countries of origin were not informed about the transfers, the Government answered as follows. ‘To the Federal Government’s knowledge, the part of the Charité Hospital’s collection currently being managed by the MVF does not contain any human remains which have been the subject of restitution claims by foreign countries’. Once more we have a very surprising answer that avoids addressing the question. Whether certain foreign States have claims or not, the duty of informing the German public and foreign States about changes in competence, structures or locations of institutions dealing with human remains exists independently.
5. Asked whether the Government is planning to transfer the skulls that presumably came from Namibia to the SPK and hence Federal ‘ownership’ upon completion of the procedures to determine provenance currently under way at the Charité Hospital and at the University of Freiburg and whether the Government would hand them over in a dignified way, that is, they would be presented by a high-ranking Government representative to the Republic of Namibia and the descendants of the victims of the German war of extermination, the Government answered as follows: ‘As far as the Government is aware, the SPK has no plans to acquire the human remains from the Charité Hospital or from the University of Freiburg collections Handovers should always take place in a dignified manner irrespective of the institution on the German side that is considered as ‘owner’. The Government contests the version of the handover ceremony of the remains on 30 September 2011.’
What should be noticed here is that the Government avoids addressing itself to a very salient point in the question which is also important for the Namibians, that is, that the remains are handed over by a high-ranking representative of the German state, Chancellor or Head of State. After all, the war of extermination and the transfer of the remains were all done in the name of the German state or the Kaiser. An appropriate and dignified return of remains can only be done by a senior representative of the German State. That the Government’s answer does not touch upon this sensitive issue shows that the Government has not understood the issue or is not willing to resolve it. Future conflicts on this point are pre-programmed.
6. Questioned about the current plans for the SPK’s collection of human remains, the Government gave an answer that should be carefully noted: ‘The collection should in future be managed by an institution with archaeological, ethnological and, above all, anthropological expertise the aim being to transfer the items currently held by the MVF to an institution outside the SPK.’ There were no plans to transfer the remains to a private institution. This answer indicates clearly that the Government is seeking to transfer the question of restitution of human remains to Namibia and elsewhere to an institution not directly under the control of the Federal Government. This would allow the Federal Government to avoid the question of an apology and the handing over by a high official of the Government. The remains would be handed over by a representative of the institution where they are held. The issue of compensation could also be easily avoided. This would be similar to the handing over on 30 September 2011. The Federal Government would appear as a third party, as mediator, but not as directly involved.
We must say here that if it is thought that by transferring the human remains to an institution outside the Government or over which the Government appears to have no direct control, one could thus avoid the obligations of the German State or reduce them, then this is an illusion. This will only prolong the controversies surrounding the human remains. As far as international law is concerned, there is here only one entity that bears responsibility: the German state. It is the subject of international law and bears rights and duties. The various institutions and the regional states, ‘Länder’, are not the bearers of the obligations and duties of Germany under international law.
7. Asked about progress that has been made since 2011 on researching the provenance of collections of human remains from Namibia, the Government gave again a surprising answer:
‘Due to the division of competences between the Federation and the Länder (Regions) and the diversified management structures, there is neither a comprehensive index of the items in question, nor does the Federal Government have a complete overview of progress on provenance research. Since 2011, the University of Freiburg - currently the only institution of relevance in this context - has announced the conclusion of its investigations and has proposed the return of 14 skulls to the Namibian Government. Berlin’s Charité Hospital is expected to conclude its DFG-funded ‘Human Remains Project’ by the end of the year and will offer further skulls originating in Namibia for repatriation. The Federal Government is also aware that the Embassy of the Republic of Namibia is negotiating with other institutions which have not yet “gone public” on this issue.’
It is hard to believe that Germany does not have a complete index of human remains and that the Federal Government does not have an overview of progress on provenance research. Germany has an excellent reputation for efficiency and German officials have been known to keep statistics under circumstances that could only be mildly described as difficult. In the developing countries, we are used to the absence of necessary statistics but to read that one of the wealthiest and most developed states in the Western world also has such a lack of statistics amazed us. Equally surprising is to read that only one institution, University of Freiburg, is actively undertaking provenance research and has concluded its investigations and has proposed the return of 14 skulls to Namibia. Is that all there is in terms of numbers regarding Namibian human remains? Berlin’s Charité has concluded its researches and would propose returning further skulls to Namibia. But how many will the Charité propose?
Hopefully the number of 14 mentioned by the Government is not suggesting that there are not many Namibian human remains in Germany. The many massacres carried on in Namibia must have yielded a great number of human remains. In any case, the fascination that human remains seem to exercise would also suggest a greater number when supply is easily available.[5] The Federal Government also states that the Embassy of the Republic of Namibia is negotiating with certain institution on this matter. Which institutions and what are they negotiating?
cc MG
cc MG
Postcard indicating who the addresses of the Box were: German Museums and Universities.
8. To the question how the Federal Government intends to mediate in ways with private institutions that are not very responsive to demands for repatriation, the Government answered that it will appeal to the sense of responsibility of those institutions: ‘it is willing to mediate in disputes between relevant institutions and claimants if this is desired by the stakeholders. The Federal Government does not, however have any means of legally obliging private institutions to conduct provenance research or to hand over human remains’.
This seems to us not entirely free of questions. As we have already stated, as far as international law is concerned, the Federal Government is responsible for fulfilling Germany’s obligations at the international level. Most of the human remains from Namibia resulted from the cruel wars of extermination of the German colonial troops who acted in the name of the State or Kaiser. Clearly, responsibility for these acts, like many of the Nazi atrocities, falls on the Federal Government. So how can the same Federal Government act as mediator between claimants and other institutions? If the Federal Government does not have any means of exerting pressure on private institution, one must ask if the Government has sought to be given this necessary means for fulfilling its international obligations.
9. Regarding plans for future repatriations, the Federal Government answered that the Namibian Government had not adopted any specific decisions on further repatriation of human remains. Both governments agree that such repatriations should be in a dignified manner.
What comes out of the answers of the Federal Government is a desire to keep the issues of human remains as far as possible away from the Government or government institutions. There is no manifestation that the government is taking a pro-active stance to have these issues solved. On the contrary, one has the impression that the governments would like these demands end as soon as possible through difficulties for the claimants such as many institutions involved and no one governmental body to address. The government seems to be waiting for Namibian government initiatives before it acts and does not feel any obligation, on its part to take the initiative to hasten the process of repatriation. We believe both the Namibian and the German Governments have obligations in this matter and one government cannot defend its lack of initiative by pointing out that the other government is also not taking any active steps.
Coming from a part of the world where governments and governmental institutions do not always answer in detail such questions as the Left Party and some Members of Parliament asked the German Federal Government, we were impressed that both sides tried to deal with the matter in some detail even if not all answers were completely satisfactory.
One point is clear: this is not the last time the German government will have to deal with the subject matter. The issues involved will not simply disappear as some may wish so long as adequate compensation has not been provided and a sincere apology expressed by a higher official of the Federal Government, President or the Chancellor. Is this too much of a price to pay for the damages and losses caused by the German extermination wars against the Herero and Nama between 1904 and 1908 in the former German colony of South-West Africa, now Namibia?
“The genocide in German South-West Africa is also significant as a prelude to the Holocaust. One need only consider notions such as concentration camps and genocide to relate these events to the mass crimes committed during the Third Reich. Although one must beware of making precipitate comparisons, it cannot be denied that there are structural similarities between the genocide committed on the Herero and Nama and the Holocaust which deserve further reflection. As less than 40 years elapse between the first and the second genocides carried out by Germans, the lack of a link would be more surprising that its existence”. [6]
NOTES
1. Vernichtungsbefehl (Extermination Order) by the German commander, General Lothar von Trotha.
Kommando der Schutztruppe.
J. Nr. 3737
Wenn das Volk dies nicht tut, so werde ich es mit dem Groot Rohr dazu zwingen. Innerhalb der Deutschen Grenze wird jeder Herero mit und ohne Gewehr, mit oder ohne Vieh erschossen, ich nehme keine Weiber und Kinder mehr auf, treibe sie zu ihrem Volke zurück oder lasse auf sie schießen. Dies sind meine Worte an das Volk der Hereros.
Der große General des mächtigen deutschen Kaisers“
Lothar von Trotha, http://news.bbc.co.uk; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide
2. K. Opoku, ‘Return of Stolen Skulls by Germany to Namibia: Closure of a Horrible Chapter?’ http://www.modernghana.com
3. Questions of the Left Party http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/18/000/1800010.pdf
4. Answers from the Government http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/18/000/1800037.pdf
An English version of the German texts can be found at 2011 - Berlin Postkolonial
www.berlin-postkolonial.de/cms/index.php?option=com_content
Answer of the Federal Government to the minor interpellation tabled by the Members of the German Bundestag Niema Movassat, Sevim Dağdelen, Wolfgang Gehrcke, Katrin Werner, Christine Buchholz, Annette Groth, Heike Hänsel, Inge Höger, Andrej Hunko, Yvonne Ploetz, Kathrin Vogler and the Left Party parliamentary group
(Answers given by Dr. Emily Haber, secretary of state at the Federal Foreign Office)
– Bundestag Printed Paper 17/7741, 14 November 2011 (question) –
– Bundestag Printed Paper 17/8057, 1 December 2011 (answer) –
Circumstances surrounding the repatriation of the mortal remains
of victims of German colonial crimes to Namibia, and the question
of apology and reconciliation
5. See Alfried Wieczorek and Wilfried Rosendahl, Schådel Kult;
Kopf und Schädel in der Kulturgeschichte des Menschen, Band 41,2011.
It is also educative to read Recommendations for the
Care of Human Remains in Museums and Collections issued by the German Museums Association where we read inter alia,
“From time to time, situations caused by war in the colonies (such as barracking in concentration camps or direct acts of war) were also exploited to acquire bodily ‘materials ’on a larger scale and to ship those ‘materials’ back to the collecting institutions in far off Europe. This procurement practice, immoral also by the ethical standards of the colonial powers, was justified by a significance for the world of science on which greater value was placed or simply hushed up. p.15 www.museumsbund.de/.../2013__Recommendation
6. Jürgen Zimmerer, “War, Concentration Camps and Genocide in South West Africa, “p.59 (eds.)Jürgen Zimmerer and Joachim Zeller, Genocide in German South-West Africa: The Colonial Wars of 1904-1908 and its Aftermath,
Merlin Press, 2008.
NIGERIAN; CALL FOR CEASEFIRE
 |
| Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan |
To
be sure we fully respect the rights of the two revered leaders to voice their
opinions and indeed their vast experience needs to be shared among all
stakeholders in Nigeria’s fortunes. However we believe that their exalted
positions as top African statesmen demand that they be more circumspect in
their utterances about each other. They need to remember that they are role
models for millions of Africans, across the continent and indeed beyond. Their
public squabble does not set the best example in this regard and indeed reduces
their public stature which they have worked so hard to achieve.
Democracy
is all about the offering of and ultimately the synthesis of different opinions
and public policy options. In this regard the differing opinions of our two respected
leaders reflects their democratic credentials and by extension, that of the PDP
itself. However we are acutely aware that they share a common vision, that of
the PDP itself for the development of our dear nation, their differences are
simply the result of slight divergences of opinion in how to achieve that
shared vision.
We
believe therefore that the two leaders should work to resolve their different
opinions in private rather than continue to expose them in public. This is for
the good of not just our party and our Nation itself, but also for the good of
Africa which is looking up to both of them for the leadership examples required
for the continent to accelerate its development and growth in order to improve
the living standards of its people.
The
former president and the incumbent should join hands in building bridges across
the country ahead the 2015 elections. Those fueling and fanning this amber of
discontent should remember that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
Therefore
the two vastly experienced statesmen should put their personal differences
aside for the common good of the party, the Nation and the continent. We plead
with them both that their respective positions place too much responsibility on
them to do otherwise. As the age old adage goes: united we stand, divided we
fall. Let our two revered leaders stand as one, because Nigeria and Africa as a
whole needs them to do so.
Chief
Obasanjo should abide by the statement he made recently when he hosted the
National Chairman of the Party (PDP), AlhajiBamangaTukur, in his Hilltop
country home, Abeokuta, Ogun State capital. According to him, “the country, the
party and government would remain my primary concern, because, if there is no
Nigeria, there will not be a party, and if there is no party, there will be
nothing to govern on the platform of the party”.
Signed:
Oscar
Sam
Ugoh Pastor
Tony White Meribe
Chairman
Die hard: Egypt’s deadly factory
By
Nyira el Sheiref
From
the more than 1000 workers in the factory, clinical examination suspected
possible presence of lung silicosis in 450 of them, prompting around 300
workers to strike for ten days last year.
Some
900 km from Cairo, 46 years old Mohamed stands in front of a blast furnace,
with a temperature reaching 450°C. Each day, for the past 11 years, this has
part of his job at the ferrosilicon factory in Edfu.
The public-owned ferrosilicon producer is the largest plant in Egypt, with a capacity of 45 000 tonnes per annum of 75% silicon alloy.
For just a moment, I stand in his shoes: The heat feels like the heart of hell itself, penetrating your cells 20 meters from the face of the furnace.
The factory is one of the main sectors of production within the company of KIMA in Aswan, where the factory produces silica alloy, which is used as an essential element in the production of iron and steel. It is also the main source in the production of the silicon dust, a secondary product to be mixed with cement to strengthen concrete construction.
Mohamed is one of more than 1000 workers. In 2010, the figure was listed at 1319 according to the Work Office. This has reduced to 1287 due to dismissing of 30 permanent workers, and two temps, during 2011.
The workers feared declaring their full names for the report for fear of retaliation by the office administration.
A report seen by FAIR [Forum for African Investigative Reporters], issued by the Medical Department of the Agouza Hospital in the Ministry of Health, to the director of the Egyptian Metallurgical Industries Company, disclosed:
"After a medical check in, it was found that the patient suffers from dyspnea and from shortness of breath from the smallest effort, and by checking his respiratory system it was found that he was suffering from shortness in the functions of his respiratory system and was advised to keep away from any dust or vapors or different air currents or any pungent smelling gases so as his health doesn’t deteriorate, and this is a health certificate, and the worker must also check his respiratory system functions after six months.”
The report was issued in December 2009, and bares the signatures of the treating physician, the General Manager of the hospital as well as the seals of the specialized medical centers in the Agouza Hospital/Ministry of Health.
In the annex, the analysis of the lung functions, as well as breath measurements of the patient, issued by the Laboratory of Lung functions in Chest department in Ain Shams University, confirmed the poor condition of the patient.
But the factory’s administration failed to act after viewing the report.
Warning: Keep Out
For two more years, the worker in question continued in the same position. In September 2011, weakened and worsened, the patient sought treatment again. The second report concluded with the same result.
The case is one of the least severe of reports seen by FAIR. Another medical report issued by the Factory’s own medical department, about the status of a worker, who had tremendous difficulty obtaining a copy, stated "the worker suffers from shortage in his bronchial tubes, a light Pulmonary Fibrosis, and a general deficiency in the functions of the lung.
For two more years, the worker in question continued in the same position. In September 2011, weakened and worsened, the patient sought treatment again. The second report concluded with the same result.
The case is one of the least severe of reports seen by FAIR. Another medical report issued by the Factory’s own medical department, about the status of a worker, who had tremendous difficulty obtaining a copy, stated "the worker suffers from shortage in his bronchial tubes, a light Pulmonary Fibrosis, and a general deficiency in the functions of the lung.
“So it is advisable to keep him away from any dust or fumes or impurities or air-currents to prevent his health situation from worsening. It is also recommended to do a follow up check-in on the functions of the lungs and chest CT scan every six months or a year."
This report, issued in December 2009 and sent to the Director of the Company, was co-signed by the General Manager of the hospital, the treating doctor, the specialized medical centers of Agouza Hospital in the Ministry of Health, and the Egyptian Metallurgical Industries company/Department of Industrial Relations/Medical Affairs/Cairo.
The report concluded with a sentence that stresses the critical situation of the worker: “It is recommendable to transfer the worker to a department away from dust.”
The annex to the report included, an analysis of the lung functions and measurement of the patient’s breathing, issued by the Laboratory of Lung functions in Chest department in Ain Shams University.
The case studies got worse: FAIR cited a third medical report signed by Doctor. Hamdi Abdullah, a specialist in respiratory problems and allergies, and director of the hospital of Sadr Edfu, heading Tuberculosis. The report that a medical examination of a worker, revealing the patient suffered from an acute inflammation of the lungs and pulmonary silicosis.
Routinely done, Routinely Scammed
For 35-year-old worker, Jaber Al Said, a worker in the production division for nearly 11 years, the labor and health conditions are dire:
“A periodic check-in is routinely, and superficially, every 6 months. The doctor who does it is actually a pediatrician. She puts her Stethoscope on; listens to our heartbeats, and is supposed to have examined us like that,” stated Jaber to FAIR.
“The check-in doesn’t last more than two minutes for each worker. And anyway. Even this clinical examination diagnosed possible lung silicosis in four cases,” he told us.
“Each time I go to the Health Insurance to do x-rays, the specialists check the results and would say that my lungs are completely clean, but they do not accept to give us the x-rays images,” he continued.
“They did that four successive times. And once, we insisted to take the images, but they said that the images were damaged!”
According to workers we spoke with, health insurance required workers to receive compensation for work-related injuries, which can reach 1500 to 2000 Egyptian Pounds. This figure is double when the rate of health failure doubles.
Physical ranges from deadly lung disease to heavily affected eyes, including ‘white water’ illness. According to Jaber, when the doctor transferred ten cases of eye infections to the Aswan-based hospital, some of whom were unable to see, the hospital claimed there were no problems.
Nothing from Nothing
Yet, according to workers, there existed no money in the insurance coffers. The specialists, they claimed, were obliged to inform workers that x-rays were fine, and that there was no need — and no possibility — for them to double check with a doctor from ‘the outside.’
From the more than 1000 workers in the factory, the clinical examination suspected possible presence of lung silicosis in 450, prompting around 300 workers — many of whom worked in the production division - to strike for ten days from 23 April to 3 May 2013.
They hoped to force the company to respond to demands for improved working conditions. The strike resulted in arbitrary transfer of workers to disrupt the strike.
“The Work Office launched judicial procedures number 4918-4917 before the Edfu Court against arbitrary transfer of workers, and the Factory’s violation of safe and healthy work conditions,” said Jaber.
“The lawsuit also included workers’ deprivation of training that would qualify them to work properly, and this is exposing them to serious risks,” he said.
Three strikes, You’re out.
According to one leader of the strike, who feared giving his own name, “After the strike I was transferred with around 70 other workers - 30 of them were sick, with slipped discs or lung silicosis.”
The leader, who preferred to be called Salama, stated that the transfer was arbitrary from the division “where we worked, to others, where the work conditions are worse, tougher and didn’t fit our specialties.”
Formerly a computer technician, Salama was now tasked with maintaining mechanical heavy equipment, involving carrying heavy machinery.
“After only two weeks I had a slipped disc. I did x-rays and I took the report of the factory’s doctor properly sealed and signed, saying that I must be transferred from the production division because it is not suitable for my health condition, and that I must only do light tasks,” he told us.
For two months, the administration refused to transfer him. A complaint was presented by Salama to the Minister of Work and the Work Office against the company’s President.
Nothing was forthcoming.
The same situation occurred for Abderazak, another striker. His illness, the doctor stated, required urgent surgery, “or it will cause lung atrophy.” But the patient was transfer to a worse section of the production division than before, due to what he stated was ‘participation in the strike.’
KIMA’s head office did not reply to several written requests, clarifying the number of workers employed (both permanent and temporary) at the factory; salaries, and terms and safety of working conditions. Queries also included the nature of the insurance policy for workers, whether workers had access to reports about their health; the quality of routine health checks; the consequences of the case launched by the Work Office against arbitrary transfer; and queries related to the strike.
FAIR will continue to follow up with KIMA.
“All this because of the strike that we organized to demand our rights. Instead of giving us our rights they were punishing us in the worst possible ways,” said Salama.
“I don’t want to die.”
