A few weeks ago, the Namibian government then represented by President Hage Geingob issued one of the strongest expressions of solidarity to the Palestinians facing the blows of Israel’s ongoing destruction of Gaza on January 13, in support of South Africa’s case bringing the charge of genocide against Israel to the International Court of Justice. It issued the following statement in response to the German government’s decision to officially support Israel’s denial of these charges [Namibia criticizes Germany]:
Namibia rejects Germany’s support of the genocidal intent of the racist Israeli state against innocent civilians in Gaza. Germany committed the first genocide of the twentieth century in 1904–1908, in which tens of thousands of innocent Namibians died in the most inhumane and brutal conditions . . . President [Hage] Geingob appeals to the German Government to reconsider its untimely decision to intervene as a third-party in defense and support of the genocidal acts of Israel before the International Court of Justice.
The German Government is yet to fully atone for the genocide it committed on Namibian soil…
The third president of Namibia, Hage Geingob, passed away this past Sunday in Windhoek, Namibia, from cancer. As a strong freedom and anti-apartheid activist, in his early years, he fought to set the international stage for the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) and the Namibian fight for independence from South Africa. After exile in Botswana, and the United States where he studied, he advocated for the acceptance of SWAPO which was ultimately recognized by the United Nations General Assembly as the sole and authentic representative of the people of Namibia. Namibians’ struggle at the international fora, and their armed struggle launched in 1966, eventually led to the independence of Namibia in 1990 from South Africa. Like Cameroon, Togo, or Tanzania, Namibia had been a German colony known as German South West Africa established in 1884, until Germany lost world War I, after which the League of Nations gave the country to the United Kingdom as a mandate under the administration of South Africa; it was simply like a de facto fifth province of South Africa.
Flag of Namibia
Geingob had served the country as its first prime minister from 1990 to 2002, and then later from 2012 to 2015. Between 2008 and 2012, Geingob served as Minister of Trade and Industry. In 2015, after elections, he became president of the nation, and was set to finish his second and final term this year. Upon his passing on February 4, his deputy, Vice President Nangolo Mbumba, was sworn in as acting president in the capital, Windhoek, to complete the term as allowed by the constitution. Mbumba will be in office until next year, when the winner of this year’s November election will take office.
“The Namibian nation has lost a distinguished servant of the people, a liberation struggle icon, the chief architect of our constitution and the pillar of the Namibian house,” the office of the presidency said.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa described Geingob as “a towering veteran of Namibia’s liberation from colonialism and apartheid.”
Kenyan President William Ruto said Geingob “strongly promoted the continent’s voice and visibility at the global arena.”
Zimbabwe’s President Emmerson Mnangagwa posted on X that Geingob’s “leadership and resilience will be remembered.”
The authorities of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger have announced simultaneously on 28 January 2024, their decision “incomplete sovereignty on the immediate withdrawal” from the regional economic bloc that is the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger stated, ECOWAS “under the influence of foreign powers, betraying its founding principles, has become a threat to its member states and its population.” The three countries have accused the regional bloc of failing to support their fight against “terrorism and insecurity,” while imposing “illegal, illegitimate, inhumane, and irresponsible sanctions.” All three countries were founding members of ECOWAS over 50 years ago.
Burkina Faso
In reality, this comes as no surprise as it is the normal evolution of the state of things. After the coup in their respective countries, the ECOWAS has suffocated these countries by suspending all three countries and imposing heavy sanctions on Mali and Niger that have only served to exacerbate the populations’ sentiments that it is a puppet organization serving foreign interests. Niger even tried to amend the situations by inviting ECOWAS representatives to the country last week, but only the member from Togo showed up. Why should anybody remain a member of an organization that punishes the populations? Are they trying to pressurize the three landlocked countries? It is sad that we, Africans, have organizations that only work to serve the interests of others. It should not even be allowed for coastal countries to use sea access to landlocked ones as a pressure point! That is totally inhumane!
Map of Niger
We all joined these organizations thinking that they would serve common African goals…. unfortunately, under external orders, they instead impose heavy sanctions on sister states. It is about time that we, Africans, unite around the cause of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, to free our continent. Their fight should be our fight, as they are fighting for our freedom, particularly that of Francophone Africa. Since the coup in Niger and rupture with France, Niger’s economy has been doing better even with all the sanctions, than since independence. Does that not tell us something? No wonder, all the European generals have been having meetings in West Africa in recent weeks, and even the American Secretary of State Anthony Blinken was in Cote d’Ivoire just a few days ago, while the populations are focused on the African Cup of Nations. We should not forget that now is the New Scramble for Africa, and Africans should not allow history to repeat itself!
Thomas Sankara a Ouagadougou
And of course, the Western media predict all doom to these countries. Freedom is not cheap, but it is best to be free of one’s destiny than being a slave at the mercy of someone else… Like Thomas Sankara said, “… the slave who is not capable of assuming his rebellion does not deserve that we feel sorry for himself. This slave will respond only to his misfortune if he is deluding himself about the suspect condescension of a master who claims to free him. Only struggle liberates …” [«… l’esclave qui n’est pas capable d’assumer sa révolte ne mérite pas que l’on s’apitoie sur son sort.Cet esclave répondra seul de son malheur s’il se fait des illusions sur la condescendance suspecte d’un maître qui prétend l’affranchir.Seule la lutte libère …»] Discours de Sankara à l’ONU le 4 octobre 1984 (texte intégral)
Asante ceremonial cap worn by courtiers at coronations is among the items that will be loaned back to Ghana (Source: British Museum / BBC)
The news is everywhere, Asante gold artifacts are returning home after 150 years … on loan from the UK to Ghana. Let’s repeat that, Ghanaian artifacts looted 150 years by British forces in modern-day Ghana, are now being returned to Ghana on a loan from the UK. What the heck? So someone comes to your house, steals from you, and then years later, after you have begged, says “I am returning some of the stuff I stole from you on loan only!” How does that make sense? People say, “it is a step forward, we need to acknowledge it, and be grateful for progress.” Grateful? Grateful for what? Because the British are loaning things they stole from the Asante kingdom of Ghana, back to Ghana? Some of these loaned items are like the crown jewels of the kingdom, and have high spiritual values as well. And this comes after Ghanaians have negotiated for very long … can you imagine? … a loan!
The V&A is lending 17 items including an Asante gold ring (top left), a gold badge worn by the king’s “soul washer” and a ceremonial pipe (Source: V&A Museum / BBC)
The UK is sending some of Ghana’s “crown jewels” back home, 150 years after looting them from the court of the Asante king.
A gold peace pipe is among 32 items returning under long-term loan deals, the BBC can reveal.
The Victoria & Albert Museum (V&A) is lending 17 pieces and 15 are from the British Museum.
Ghana’s chief negotiator said he hoped for “a new sense of cultural co-operation” after generations of anger.
Some national museums in the UK – including the V&A and the British Museum – are banned by law from permanently giving back contested items in their collections [somehow, they are not banned by law from taking stolen goods], and loan deals such as this are seen as a way to allow objects to return to their countries of origin .
But some countries laying claim to disputed artefacts fear that loans may be used to imply they accept the UK’s ownership. Tristram Hunt, director of the V&A, told the BBC that the gold items of court regalia are the equivalent of “our Crown Jewels“.
The items to be loaned, most of which were taken during 19th-Century wars between the British and the Asante [known as the Anglo-Ashanti wars, series of conflict wars which lasted from 1824 to 1900], include a sword of state and gold badges worn by officials charged with cleansing the soul of the king.
British troops ransacking Fomena Palace en route to Kumasi in 1874
Mr Hunt said when museums hold “objects with origins in war and looting in military campaigns, we have a responsibility to the countries of origin to think about how we can share those more fairly today. It doesn’t seem to me that all of our museums will fall down if we build up these kind of partnerships and exchanges.” [that’s why they only loan a minuscule number at a time … so their museums don’t fall apart].
However, Mr Hunt insisted the new cultural partnership “is not restitution by the back door” – meaning it is not a way to return permanent ownership back to Ghana. [The UK are still the owners of these Ghanaian artifacts stolen from Ghana].
The three-year loan agreements, with an option to extend for a further three years, are not with the Ghanaian government but with Otumfo Osei Tutu II – the current Asante king known as the Asantehene – who attended the Coronation of King Charles last year. [Did the negotiation include attending the British King’s coronation, as a condition for loaning?]
… The items will go on display at the Manhyia Palace Museum in Kumasi, the capital of the Asante region, to celebrate the Asantehene’s silver jubilee.
The Asante gold artefacts are the ultimate symbol of the Asante royal government and are believed to be invested with the spirits of former Asante kings.
They have an importance to Ghana comparable to the Benin Bronzes – thousands of sculptures and plaques looted by Britain from the palace of the Kingdom of Benin (Benin City: the Majestic City the British burnt to the ground), in modern-day southern Nigeria. Nigeria has been calling for their return for decades.
Nana Oforiatta Ayim, special adviser to Ghana’s culture minister, told the BBC: “They’re not just objects, they have spiritual importance as well. They are part of the soul of the nation. It’s pieces of ourselves returning.” She said the loan was “a good starting point” on the anniversary of the looting and “a sign of some kind of healing and commemoration for the violence that happened“.
UK museums hold many more items taken from Ghana, including a gold trophy head that is among the most famous pieces of Asante regalia. The Asante built what was once one of the most powerful and formidable states in west Africa, trading in, among others, gold, textiles and enslaved people. The kingdom was famed for its military might and wealth. …
Burning of Kumasi by British troops in 1874
Europeans were attracted to what they later named the Gold Coast by the stories of African wealth and Britain fought repeated battles with the Asante in the 19th Century. In 1874 after an Asante attack, British troops launched a “punitive expedition”, in the colonial language of the time, ransacking Kumasi and taking many of the palace treasures.
[The items on loan] include three heavy cast-gold items known as soul washers’ badges (Akrafokonmu), which were worn around the necks of high ranking officials at court who were responsible for cleansing the soul of the king. …
The British Museum is also returning on loan a total of 15 items, some of them looted during a later conflict in 1895-96, including a sword of state known as the Mpomponsuo.
Tomorrow in Ethiopia will be the celebration of the Timkat or the Ethiopian festival celebrating the Epiphany. This year, it takes place on 20 January given that it is a leap year, and on 19 January on regular years (which is the 10th day of the Terr – Ethiopian calendar). This festival celebrates the baptism of Jesus Christ on the Jordan river by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–23). It is particularly praised for its reenactment of the baptism. Pilgrims come from around the country to celebrate the Epiphany, which lasts three days. During the ceremonies of Timkat, the Tabot, a model of the Ark of the Covenant, is reverently wrapped in rich cloth and borne in procession on the head of the most senior priest to a place near the river, where a special tent will be erected for it.
Last October, Ethiopian prime minister Abiy Ahmed declared that having sea access was an existential issue for Ethiopia, which is the largest most populous landlocked country in the world with over 100 million inhabitants. Everyone started fearing, because since Abiy’s arrival, Ethiopia has been in conflict internally in Tigray and Oromia. Everyone started fearing for a renewed conflict with Eritrea, after the peace treaty signed between both nations on 9 July 2018 which formally ended the Eritrean–Ethiopian border conflict. The worries stemmed from the fact that Ethiopia lost its sea access when Eritrea seceded in 1993. The conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea is like the conflict between China and Taiwan… except it takes on an existential nature in the case of Ethiopia which is landlocked because of it. So when Prime Minister Abiy made his announcement in October, everyone on the horn of Africa started sweating. Ethiopia begged its coastal neighbors, but Djibouti, Eritrea, and Somalia all rejected its pleas for direct access to a port on the Red Sea.
Map of the sub-region with Somaliland and its port of Berbera highlighted (Source: Financial Times)
On January 1, 2024, Ethiopia announced an agreement signed with Somaliland to lease the port of Berbera on the Red Sea, and a 20-km stretch of Red Sea coastline for 20 years, in exchange Somaliland will receive shares in its neighbor’s flagship carrier, Ethiopian Airlines, Africa’s most successful airline – and eventual recognition as an independent state. Prime Minister Abiy’s office said the agreement would “pave the way to realize the aspiration of Ethiopia to secure access to the sea.” Somaliland’s foreign ministry said in a statement that the “historic agreement ensures Ethiopia’s access to the sea for their naval forces, reciprocated by formal recognition of the Republic of Somaliland, marking this as a significant diplomatic milestone for our country.” This agreement paves the way for Ethiopia to establish a commercial and military presence on the coast. I breathed a sigh of relief… which I had to take back the following day when Somalia’s President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud called the Ethiopia-Somaliland agreement an act of agression! He sees it as such, because the agreement would seem to imply that Ethiopia will recognize Somaliland as an independent state. Somaliland seceded from Somalia more than 30 years ago, but is not recognized by the African Union (AU) or the UN as an independent state. Quickly, both the US and the African Union have backed the territorial integrity of Somalia and urged all parties to cool tensions.
Flag of Somalia
Ethiopia and Somalia are two states with a lengthy history of military conflict and animosity. Now, the president of Somalia is campaigning up and down the horn of Africa and has gotten the support of Egypt (remember that Egypt is mad at Ethiopia for building the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Nile and getting its proper share of the Nile’s waters – story for another day), Turkey, the puppet organization that is the AU, the European Union (EU), and the US. He stepped up the rhetoric by saying: “We will defend our country, we will defend it by all means necessary and seek the support of any ally willing to help us.” and called on youths “to prepare for the defense of our country“.
Map of the region with the different countries involved and ports (Source: Medium.com)
In my simple views, given Ethiopia’s large population, economic weight, and regional cloud (Ethiopia is now a member of the BRICS), any neighboring coastal state would benefit from working with it and developing agreements that will allow the use of its ports; it should be a win-win situation! Thus, it would seem careless for Somalia to want to start war, when all that could be done is get an agreement from Ethiopia to pay Somalia instead or split the proceeds from Somaliland… Ethiopia is definitely not getting access to the port of Berbera for free! Why is Somalia seeing a war threat from Ethiopia and not Somaliland… their issue is with Somaliland, why not deal with that? Neighboring Sudan has been at war since the middle of last year. Conflict would further destabilize the entire region, which is so close to the strategic Gulf of Aden on the Red Sea, one of the world’s largest shipping routes. Could this be a way for the Somalian president to justify his poor internal politics, by diverting his people’s attention towards war? These African countries are always ready and eager to lease their lands, ports, airports, for a specific duration to European or Chinese or even South African companies, why is it so hard to do the same for fellow African neighbors?
To learn more, read this article from the Conversation, Medium, or Modern Diplomacy. Dear reader, do you think this is the beginning of yet another conflict in the Horn of Africa? Do you think this will further play into the New Scramble for Africa?
African Heritage 