UN Adopts Resolution Declaring Transatlantic Slave Trade “Gravest Crime Against Humanity”
A landmark resolution, initiated by President John Dramani Mahama, has been overwhelmingly adopted at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, formally declaring the transatlantic slave trade as the gravest crime against humanity. The motion garnered significant support, with 123 member states voting in favour, three against, and 52 abstaining.
The resolution’s adoption marks a pivotal moment in global efforts to confront the enduring legacy of slavery and its impact on contemporary society. It received robust backing from influential regional blocs, including the African Group, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and a broad coalition of Asia-Pacific nations.
The dissenting votes were primarily led by the United States, while the European Union and France, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, opted for abstention.
A Call for Truth, Remembrance, and Reconciliation
During the deliberations, Ghana’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, presented the resolution on behalf of President Mahama and the African Group. He urged member states to lend their support, emphasizing that the resolution’s core objective is to bolster global initiatives combating racism, racial discrimination, and xenophobia in all their manifestations.
Mr. Ablakwa clarified that the resolution does not aim to establish a hierarchy of crimes or to revisit history for punitive purposes. Instead, he articulated, “It is about completing history.” He stressed that the resolution is not intended to target specific nations or foster division. Rather, it seeks to establish a principled framework for reconciliation, firmly rooted in truth and acknowledgment.
“At its heart, this draft resolution is forward-looking and unifying,” Mr. Ablakwa stated. “It is focused on truth, remembrance, education, and dialogue. It is grounded not in retribution but in moral recognition.” He implored the General Assembly to vote in favour of this crucial measure.
Points of Contention and Dissent
The United States, in its opposition, argued that the inclusion of the term “gravest” in the resolution could inadvertently create a legal hierarchy of crimes. The US representative contended that the resolution pursued a specific and narrow agenda that was incongruent with the principles enshrined in the UN Charter.
“While we acknowledge the horrors of the past, we do not accept this resolution’s assertion that historical acts from the 15th to the 19th century constitute violations under modern legal standards,” the US stated. Furthermore, the United States declared its non-recognition of any legal right to reparations for historical injustices that were not deemed illegal under international law at the time of their occurrence.
The US also raised concerns about the clarity of the resolution regarding the intended recipients of reparatory justice, suggesting that the drafters and supporters seemed to believe they were the beneficiaries. “The US strongly objects to the cynical use of historical wrongs as leverage in an attempt to reallocate modern resources to people and nations distantly related to the historical victims,” the representative added.
The US representative further described the historical account presented in the resolution as “arbitrary,” noting that the trafficking of enslaved Africans commenced much earlier than the 15th century and regrettably extended beyond the 19th century.
European Union’s Stance: Condemnation and Abstention
A representative speaking on behalf of the European Union unequivocally condemned the transatlantic slave trade, acknowledging the imperative to learn from historical events. She highlighted the EU’s recently adopted anti-racism strategy as a testament to its commitment to addressing the lasting impact of slavery.
“This resolution was presented as a forward-looking and unifying process,” the EU representative stated. “It offers a meaningful opportunity to foster unity among UN member states to jointly address an issue of paramount importance for all.”
However, the EU expressed regret that a consensus could not be reached within the compressed negotiation timeframe. “We also regret that the proponents of the resolution did not reconsider their approach despite our repeated calls for constructive engagement,” she remarked.
The EU representative concluded that the final text of the resolution did not adequately reflect the Union’s position on critical issues, which led to their decision to abstain from voting.
The adoption of this resolution is expected to have significant implications for how the international community addresses historical injustices and their ongoing consequences. It serves as a powerful affirmation of the human cost of the transatlantic slave trade and a renewed commitment to global efforts aimed at preventing such atrocities from ever recurring.
