The United Nations has voted for the UK to give up trillions of pounds in “reparations” for the transatlantic slave trade.
A resolution tabled by Ghana on behalf of the African Union called for Britain to begin “good-faith dialogue on reparatory justice, including a full and formal apology, measures of restitution, compensation”.
Britain has, so far, said no.
Campaigners have claimed reparations packages could be worth trillions of pounds – while the resolution condemned the historical slave trade as the “gravest crime against humanity”.
The non-binding resolution passed in the UN General Assembly with a vote of 124 to three, with the UK abstaining from the vote, alongside 51 other countries.
The three countries who voted against the resolution were Argentina, Israel and the United States.
Most European Union countries abstained from the vote, including countries who engaged in the transatlantic slave trade such as Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands.
African countries, some of which only outlawed slavery this century, lobbied the broader UN in New York for weeks, successfully getting support from countries such as Iran, China, and Russia.
Many Commonwealth countries, including India, also backed the resolution.
James Kariuki, the charge d’affaires at the UK mission to the UN, said Britain “continues to disagree with fundamental propositions of the text”.
He also raised concerns over legal language used within the non-binding resolution.
Dan Negrea, the US representative to the UN, raised the issue of the Trans-Saharan slave trade and other forms of slavery, which were not condemned as a crime against humanity.
He said the US rejected an attempt to create a “hierarchy” of crimes against humanity and said supporters of the resolution were using it to further their political goals.
GB News: continue reading
See Related Article Below
Britain should have voted against reparations
The moral and historical arguments for “reparatory justice” are bogus
BEN SIXSMITH
The UK has abstained from a UN vote on whether European states like Britain owe reparations for the transatlantic slave trade. This sort of moral clarity and political backbone should resolve this issue once and for all.
The UK, and other European states, should reject demands for reparations absolutely and completely. This is not, of course, to deny that enslavement was, is and will always be evil — it is monumentally evil. But the case for reparations, as I see it, must rest on at least one of two premises: that X has actually been responsible for crimes or that X is benefiting from crimes. Clearly, Britons are not responsible for the crimes of their distant ancestors. Nor, as Kristian Niemitz explained in 2024, has British wealth depended on slavery.
But the problems with this week’s UN vote on “historical wrongs affecting Africans and people of the diaspora” do not end here. Its focus is only on the transatlantic slave trade. This is despite the fact that the Arab slave trade was comparable in scale and actually lasted longer. Some of the nations which have endorsed this week’s UN resolution are farcically hypocritical. For example, Mauritania voted in favour despite slavery persisting there today.
This is not to acquit slave traders of moral responsibility. “You do it too” is the logic of a child. But it does acquit them of exceptional responsibility.
The difference, of course, is that the descendants of the architects of the Arab slave trade are not doing as well as the descendants of the architects of the transatlantic slave trade. The resolution has less to do with historical injustice than it has to do with modern inequality. But that inequality is not necessarily unjust.
What would be unjust would be to bleed European taxpayers dry over the sins of their fathers (or, to be more precise, their great-great-great grandfathers). Now that’s an injustice.
But I have one more issue with reparations — and perhaps it is broad enough that I can escape the charge of partisanship. I am fortunate enough to live in Poland, where politicians often call for reparations from Germany to compensate for its crimes in World War Two. Now, the Polish case for reparations from Germany seems stronger than the case which has been discussed in the UN. Firstly, the crimes are far more recent. Secondly, the bloodshed — with the Germans killing between 2 and 3 million Poles — was more intense.
Still, if Polish politicians wanted advice from me — which, to be clear, I am very much aware that they do not — I think I would challenge the case for compensation. If nothing else, Poland has been doing very well without it. It has its problems, of course — which I’ll leave to Poles to discuss and debate — but its economy is growing (it recently entered the world’s top 20 economies), its military is the largest in Europe and its tech and manufacturing sectors are prospering.
With this in mind, I’m not sure it should look to the past. Of course, we should remember the struggles and sacrifices of our ancestors. Without them, we would be nothing (literally nothing). But to relitigate historical injustices seems like a distraction from contemporary progress. The fight for reparations is essentially backwards-looking and zero-sum, while Poland has been making exceptional strides through its innovation and its productivity. Of course, I can’t and won’t tell Polish politicians what to do. But it does at least seem like something to consider.
To reduce slavery to one period, and to hold one people responsible, is morally and intellectually wrong
A lot of the governments which voted in favour of the UN resolution are quite simply appalling. To be fair, that is not always true. Ghana’s John Dramani Mahama tabled the resolution, and my limited understanding is that he is a fairly popular and effective president. But look at some of its backers — not just Vladimir Putin, who owes untold reparations today, but the likes of the comically corrupt Equatoguinean regime of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo or the blood-drenched Eritrean tyrant Isaias Afwerki. Of course the governments of men like this, or even less egregiously atrocious leaders, want to focus on historical wrongs. They can accomplish nothing good today. Dwelling on the past, and trying to take from other people’s success, is much easier than being successful themselves.
Again, this is not to avoid acknowledging the horrors of enslavement and slave trading. To reduce a human being to a mere commodity is fundamentally appalling even before one gets to additional horrors like drowning, in the case of the transatlantic slave trade, and castration, in the case of the Arab slave trade. We should remember how cruel man can be to man. But to reduce slavery to one period, and to hold one people responsible, is morally and intellectually wrong. The British government should not have abstained — it should have voted no.
This article (Britain should have voted against reparations) was created and published by The Critic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Ben Sixsmith
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply