Why US and Europe opposed key resolution on slave trade

Audio By Vocalize

Last week, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a landmark resolution declaring the transatlantic slave trade as the “gravest crime against humanity.”

The vote, in which 123 states voted in favour, three against, and 52 abstained, represented a long-awaited admission after centuries of refusal to confront the scale of the enduring consequences of chattel slavery. For this reason, the resolution is welcomed by many and is seen as a first step toward reparations that Black people across the world have been clamouring for.

Many note that it was a great historical injustice to compensate slave owners for the end of slavery. The United Kingdom, for instance, finished compensating former slave owners and their families as recently as 2015.

That compensation of former enslaved people and their families has been considered impossible is concerning. Incidentally, the voting pattern during the UNGA meeting shows that the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Those who voted against the resolution were to be expected: Israel, the United States, and, more surprisingly, Argentina openly showed their disagreement with the resolution. The official justification from the United States was revealing.

Its representatives rejected the idea of reparations, arguing that slavery was not illegal under international law at the time. This calls into question the moral compass of the country, as the fact that there was no codified law against slavery does not, in the present and even in hindsight, prevent one from noticing how heinous the entire operation was.

More importantly, the refusal to recognise the slave trade as uniquely foundational reflects the United States’ ongoing struggle with its own racial order. From mass incarceration to wealth inequality, the afterlives of slavery remain structurally embedded.

To fully acknowledge the crime would open the door to claims that the present structure, where Black people continue to struggle to be on equal footing with their white counterparts, even in the face of police brutality, mass incarceration, and the school-to-prison pipeline, would be to admit that slavery has never ended; it merely changed in its manifestation.

The 52 abstentions, on the other hand, came from the United Kingdom and the entire European Union, their justification being that there does not exist a hierarchy of crimes in international law, and therefore it would be unfair to rank this one crime higher than all others.

Over 12.5 million Africans were forcibly displaced over four centuries, and their labour was extracted to build European and American wealth. By this scale of numbers alone, and by the fact that the crime itself endured for over 400 years, it should go without question that the Transatlantic slave trade should be considered the gravest crime in history. Yet, we know that the decimation of Black bodies is viewed as par for the course by our lighter-hued brothers and sisters.

The Congo, for instance, has never known peace since King Leopold took it under his charge into the present day. Should the world, 100 years from today, finally allow the Congolese people the chance to live in peace and declare that the process of mineral extraction had been genocidal, we know exactly who would object to such a resolution.

Europe was not merely a participant in the slave trade but was in fact its primary architect. British, Portuguese, French, and Dutch empires were at the helm of orchestrating the commodification of African bodies on an industrial scale. The wealth generated from this trade of human beings financed industrialisation, banking systems, and global trade networks that still benefit these nations today.

The refusal to acknowledge the gravity of the slave trade, even though now couched under legalese, proves that this is a trend with the West. Perhaps the fear is that acknowledging the past will also put a spotlight on the present.

The reality is that, even though the slave trade formally ended, it mutated into new crimes against Africa, including colonialism, apartheid, and the current scourge of neocolonialism.

Europe is not willing to free its goose that lays golden eggs and will therefore not acknowledge that its past and present-day actions constitute crimes.

Ms. Njahira is an international lawyer