The United Nations has made a significant move by describing the transatlantic chattel slave trade as the 'gravest crime against humanity', a decision that has sparked both celebration and controversy. This resolution, proposed by Ghana's President John Dramani Mahama, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing fight for recognition and reparations for the descendants of enslaved Africans.
The vote, which saw 123 states in favor, 3 against (Argentina, Israel, and the US), and 52 abstentions (including the UK and EU members), highlights the global divide on this issue. While some argue that it sets a dangerous precedent by creating a hierarchy of historical atrocities, others see it as a necessary step towards acknowledging the profound impact of slavery on the world.
James Kariuki, the UK's chargé d'affaires to the UN, voiced his disagreement, emphasizing the need to avoid ranking historical atrocities. However, the resolution's proponents argue that it is not about hierarchy but about recognizing the unique devastation caused by the transatlantic slave trade.
The petition presented by British MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy to the House of Commons underscores the ongoing relevance of this issue. It highlights how the legacies of enslavement and empire continue to shape global challenges, from geopolitical instability to systemic racism and climate breakdown. Ribeiro-Addy's petition calls for a state apology from the UK, a move that could have far-reaching implications for the country's historical reckoning with its colonial past.
The resolution's passage is a significant step in the broader effort for reparatory justice, led by Ghana and supported by the African Union (AU) and the Caribbean Community (Caricom). It aims to address the lingering impact of chattel slavery, which saw seven European nations, including the UK, enslave and traffic over 15 million Africans across the Atlantic for four centuries. The scale of this crime is so immense that it has been referred to as a 'crime against humanity' by 18th and 19th-century abolitionists.
Historians, such as Jasmine Mickens from Harvard University, emphasize that framing the slave trade as a 'trade' distorts its true nature. They argue that it was not a consensual business but a brutal system of exploitation and dehumanization. The AU's Kyeretwie Osei further clarifies that the resolution is not about ranking crimes but about situating the transatlantic slave trade in its historical context, recognizing its profound impact on the development of modern racial capitalism.
The UN's acknowledgment of slavery as a crime began in 2001 at the Durban conference against racism, xenophobia, and related intolerance. However, Panashe Chigumadzi, a historian and rapporteur for the AU's committee on reparations, points out the limitations of that conference, which framed slavery as a 'retroactive moral judgment' rather than a continuous legal reality. The AU's framework, she argues, establishes a definitive break in world history, marking the inception of the transatlantic slave trade as the moment when localized feudal regimes gave way to the modern racial capitalist system.
Despite the resolution's non-binding nature, it is expected to catalyze further progress in the fight for reparations. This movement is particularly significant in the face of rising right-wing movements in the West, which scholars and politicians argue have hindered the reparatory justice debate. The AU's ongoing efforts to codify chattel slavery as a crime that requires more than apologies but also reparatory justice reflect a deeper understanding of the historical and ongoing impact of this institution on African people.
In conclusion, the UN's resolution is a powerful statement that acknowledges the transatlantic slave trade's profound and lasting impact on humanity. It serves as a reminder that the fight for recognition and justice is far from over, and that the legacies of enslavement continue to shape our world in ways that demand honest reckoning and transformative change.
