The red line saga
...the other side of the coin
Iwould like to register my humble concern on the issue of the red line from an obscured but seemingly overlooked perspective in the whole saga. The term “red line” comes from the depiction in red ink line on a 1911 map created by the German colonial administration.
To begin with, the hard fact is that Namibia has inherited enormous socio-economic problems, including colonial legal systems at independence. Namibia still carries some old-fashioned regulatory baggage from the past.
Often these regulations are outdated and are not well suited to Namibians in the post-colonial era, but in the absence of reformed legal instruments, they are regretfully still applicable, to the detriment of the voiceless Namibians who only come to know such provisions in their desperate moments. For example, during the writ of execution of real estate, after one of them has transitioned to the realm of ancestry. Most Namibians do not know the history and concept of the Red Line. Hence, it is tempting and imperative to set out its origin, in the context of this contribution. By extension, the dominant minority white cattle farmers believed that the natives’ cattle north of the veterinary fence were a threat to their herds after the outbreak of the Rinderpest plague in Southern Africa (Angola and Zambia) in 1896, and their lucrative global meat market. They still do. Today, these contagious beliefs seem to have infected the post-independence elite legislators and investors.
History tells us that in May 1915, South African troops defeated the German troops in the Second World War and took control of SWA (now Namibia). The goals and interests underlying colonial South African rule were indeed similar to those of the preceding German regime, and South Africa was the direct beneficiary of German policies of domination and expropriation.
Hence, just like it was for the Germans Vryburg Plan in 1896, the red line was equally ideal under the infamous Odendaal Plan (1963-1968), which expanded the colonial South Africa’s divide and rule policy of “homelands”.
Thus, it is safe to agree with Wellner (2001) that the presence of large herds of unvaccinated cattle in Angola and Zambia was a good reason for Namibia to promote the continuation of the red line after independence, although modern veterinary methods [in post-independent Namibia] have undermined the need for the fence in some ways.
In retrospect, on the surface, the aim of the cordon line was for animal disease control. Beneath, it was covertly advanced as a systematic discriminatory and regulatory policy to keep “natives” north of the red line, out of bountiful opportunities south of the red line and “white people’s farmlands” (sic), unless they were labourers or domestic workers (ibid).
Job Amupanda sums it very well that the rationale was, inter-alia, “to control movements of native people” and the [red line] failed to achieve its objective of controlling the Rinderpest disease (New Era, The 1886 Red Line-a brief history, 18 February 2022).
The proposal to remove the red line was heard between 1996-2004 by the then minister of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development. If anyone has been so eager to remove this colonial red line, why is it taking so long to simply do that? If the Foot and Mouth disease above the Kunene River is the reason, then why not move the border alongside the river once and set up a moratorium to vaccinate all animals above the current line before removing it completely.
We have mobilised resources and spent millions for Covid-19 vaccinations, and I am sure we can do the same to vaccinate all animals in the north too. If we can’t do it, we may as well ask the Germans to remove their problematic line.
There is a need for an urgent commitment on this matter in lieu of promoting free trade areas and human rights. It is just disheartening that the majority of Namibians are still suffering under draconian apartheid measures.
The constitution of Namibia’s third amendment was conducted in a matter of weeks in 2014, why can’t we drum up a drive to repeal or amend this discriminatory law 32 years after independence? It is better for a state not to have a law, than to have one that favours non-nationals, instead of its citizenry. (This is the lamentation of a Northerner). I submit. -This article has been shortened.