Despite acknowledging historical injustice, US, UK, EU push for UN slavery reparations. world News
The United Nations General Assembly has voted to recognize the enslavement of Africans during the transatlantic slave trade as “the most serious crime against humanity”, a move supporters say aims to confront historical injustice and advance reparative justice. But the vote revealed clear divisions. While a large majority supported the resolution, Western powers including the United States, United Kingdom and European Union Member states either rejected it outright or refused to support it, not because of history, but because of how it should be defined, interpreted, and acted upon today.
A resolution built around history, justice and reparations
The resolution proposed by Ghana was adopted by 123 votes in favor, with three abstentions, including the United States, Israel and Argentina, and 52 abstentions, including the UK and all EU member states. It declares “trafficking in enslaved Africans and the racial enslavement of Africans the most serious crimes against humanity” and links that history to the present through “the persistence of racial discrimination and neo-colonialism.” Beyond recognition, the text calls on Member States to engage in discussions on reparative justice. This includes “a full and formal apology, measures of reparation, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, guarantees of non-recurrence, and changes to laws, programs, and services to address racism and systemic discrimination.” It also urges the “prompt and unhindered return” of cultural objects, including artefacts, monuments and archives, to their countries of origin. Although General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, they carry significant political importance and are often used to shape global norms and debates.
Why did the United States vote against?
united states acknowledging the horror People from the past opposed this proposal, arguing that it created both legal and ideological problems. Deputy US Ambassador Dan Negria said Washington “does not recognize a legal right to reparations for historical wrongs that were not illegal under international law at the time they occurred”. He also objected to the drafting of the resolution, saying: “The United States also strongly objects to the resolution’s attempt to rank crimes against humanity in any kind of hierarchy.” He said, “The claim that some crimes against humanity are less serious than others minimizes the suffering of countless victims and survivors of other atrocities throughout history.” Negría further criticized what he described as “the reprehensible use of historical wrongs as a leverage point to reallocate modern resources to peoples and nations who are distantly related to historical victims”, and questioned the lack of clarity on who would qualify as recipients of reparative justice.He also argued that the historical framework of the proposal was selective, stating that the time period referenced was “clearly chosen for political reasons rather than historical accuracy, and pointed out that the trafficking of African slaves began before the 15th century and continued beyond the 19th century.”
Why were the UK and EU absent?
united kingdom And EU member states Did not oppose the proposal outright, but declined to support it, citing concerns over legal principles and wording. Speaking on behalf of the UK, Acting Ambassador to the UN James Kariuki said Britain recognized “the abhorrent nature of slavery and the transatlantic slave trade” and acknowledged that its legacy “still leaves deep scars today”. However, he added that the UK “disagrees with the fundamental proposals of the text”. A major objection was the idea of ranking atrocities. Kariuki argued: “We should not create a hierarchy of historical atrocities… No one set of atrocities should be considered more or less important than another.” He also pointed to core legal principles, saying: “There is equally no duty to provide compensation for historical acts that did not constitute a breach of international law for acts committed at the time.” The European Union also expressed similar concerns. Gabriela Michelidou, speaking on behalf of the Bloc, said that the use of words such as “serious” was “not legally precise” and risked creating “a hierarchy between atrocity crimes”. He said the proposal contained an “unbalanced interpretation of historical events” and raised concerns about “suggestions of retroactive application of international rules that did not exist at the time and claims for reparations”. Both the UK and EU stressed that while they support remembrance and efforts to combat modern forms of slavery, they cannot support the resolution in its current form.
Ghana’s case for recognition and restorative justice
For Ghana and its allies, the proposal is less about legal technicalities and more about historical acceptance and long-term consequences. Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama, who supported the initiative, told the gathering: “Today, we come together in full solidarity to affirm the truth and advance a path of healing and restorative justice.” “Adopting this resolution serves as protection against forgetting,” he said. “Let it be recorded that when history prompted, we did what was right for the memory of the millions who suffered the indignity of slavery.” Ghana’s Foreign Minister, Samuel Okudjato Ablakwa, rejected criticism that the resolution sought to categorize suffering. “The perpetrators of the transatlantic slave trade are known, the Europeans, the United States. We expect him to formally apologize to all Africans and all people of African descent,” he said. He also clarified the intention behind compensation, telling the BBC: “We are demanding compensation, and let us be clear, African leaders are not asking for money for themselves. We want justice for the victims and to support educational and endowment funds, skills training funds.” Ablakwa argued that the legacy of slavery is still visible today, adding: “Multiple generations have faced exclusion, racism due to the transatlantic slave trade, which has isolated and impoverished millions of people from the continent.”
A vote that reflects consensus and division
The resolution was adopted on the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, commemorating the estimated 12 to 15 million Africans who were forcibly transported over four centuries, with more than two million believed to have died during the journey. It is one of the strongest formal recognitions of the transatlantic slave trade within the UN system, linking historical injustice to current inequalities and calling for a structured global response. At the same time, the division in votes underlines a permanent divide. Although there is widespread agreement on the cruelty and historical importance of slavery, there is little agreement on how that history should be defined in legal terms, and whether it should carry financial and political obligations in the present.