UN General Assembly Declares Transatlantic Slave Trade “Gravest Crime Against Humanity”
The United Nations General Assembly has formally designated the transatlantic African slave trade as “the gravest crime against humanity.” This significant resolution was adopted with overwhelming support, despite objections from the United States, Israel, and Argentina, and abstentions from the United Kingdom and several European Union member states.
The vote, which saw 123 nations in favour, three against, and 52 abstentions, was met with applause, signalling a pivotal moment for advocates seeking acknowledgment and potential reparations for the enduring legacy of this historical atrocity.
A Call for Healing and Restorative Justice
Ghana’s President John Mahama, a prominent advocate for slavery reparations and a key supporter of the resolution within the African Union, was present at the UN headquarters in New York. He articulated the resolution’s profound significance, stating, “Today, we come together in solemn solidarity to affirm truth and pursue a route to healing and reparative justice. The adoption of this resolution serves as a safeguard against forgetting.”
While the resolution is non-binding, its impact extends beyond mere acknowledgment. It explicitly calls upon nations involved in the slave trade to engage in restorative justice initiatives. Furthermore, the resolution underscores the persistent impact of slavery on contemporary society, highlighting “the persistence of racial discrimination and neocolonialism.”
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres powerfully described the transatlantic slave trade as “a crime against humanity that struck at the core of personhood, broke up families, and devastated communities.” He further elaborated on the ideological underpinnings of this brutal system, noting, “To justify the unjustifiable, slavery’s proponents and beneficiaries constructed a racist ideology – turning prejudice into a pseudoscience.”
Divergent Views on Historical Accountability
The United States voiced significant reservations, labelling the resolution’s text as “highly problematic.” Ambassador Dan Negrea stated, “The United States also does not recognise a legal right to reparations for historical wrongs that were not illegal under international law at the time they occurred.” He also expressed strong objection to “the resolution’s attempt to rank crimes against humanity in any type of hierarchy.”
Similar sentiments were echoed by the United Kingdom and EU member states, who, while acknowledging the historical injustices of slavery, raised concerns about the resolution’s comparative approach to historical tragedies. France’s representative, Sylvain Fournel, cautioned that the resolution “risks pitting historical tragedies against each other that should not be compared, except at the expense of the memory of the victims.”
Demands for Apologies and Restitution
Ghanaian Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa countered the criticism that the text sought to quantify human suffering. He asserted that the perpetrators of the transatlantic slave trade were identifiable, namely “the Europeans, the United States of America.” He expressed an expectation that these entities would “formally apologise to Africa and to all people of African descent.”
Minister Ablakwa outlined several pathways towards restorative justice. He emphasized the return of “all the looted artefacts to the motherland” as a crucial step. Additionally, he proposed that institutions should continue to actively address structural racism and that “compensation” could be offered to those who have been directly affected by the enduring consequences of slavery.
The adoption of this resolution marks a significant moment in the global discourse on historical accountability, racial justice, and the ongoing efforts to address the multifaceted legacies of the transatlantic slave trade.
