By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The United Nations has passed a resolution designating the transatlantic chattel slave trade as the “gravest crime against humanity” and advocating for reparations. This landmark vote, supported by the African Union and Caribbean Community, aims to politically recognize and address the enduring impact of this historical atrocity. While 123 states voted in favor, some, including the US, voted against, and others, like the UK, abstained, citing concerns about creating a hierarchy of historical wrongs. The resolution is a significant step towards acknowledging the profound historical and ongoing consequences of slavery and colonialism.
Read the original article here
The United Nations has recently taken a significant step, voting to classify the transatlantic chattel slave trade as the “gravest crime against humanity.” This declaration, which also calls for reparations as a means of rectifying historical injustices, was championed by the African Union and the Caribbean Community, and proposed by Ghana’s president. The resolution garnered support from 123 states, though notable dissent came from Argentina, Israel, and the US, with a substantial 52 countries, including the UK and EU members, abstaining from the vote.
The very act of labeling any crime as the “gravest” raises complex questions. It inherently shifts the focus from condemning the act itself to a potentially divisive debate about comparing the severity of different atrocities. How does one objectively measure the weight of evils like genocide, rape, and torture against each other? The assertion that one form of slavery is demonstrably worse than all others, or indeed worse than any other atrocity ever committed, invites such comparisons, potentially undermining the unified condemnation of human cruelty.
Further complicating this declaration is the specific framing of the resolution. While it speaks broadly of diverse legal and moral traditions affirming human dignity, it pointedly highlights African jurisprudence, specifically the Kouroukan Fouga (Manden Charter) of 1235. This inclusion, meant to underscore historical recognition of human rights, is ironically juxtaposed with the fact that the Kouroukan Fouga itself contained provisions for the ownership of slaves. This internal contradiction within the document, followed by mentions of other historical codifications of slavery, raises questions about the thoroughness and nuanced understanding underpinning the resolution.
The focus on the transatlantic slave trade, while undeniably a horrific chapter in human history, has also drawn criticism for its selective nature. Many have pointed out that this resolution appears to overlook or minimize other extensive and long-running slave trades, such as the Arab slave trade, which involved millions of people across different regions and races. Furthermore, the glaring absence of any mention of modern-day slavery, which continues to ensnare countless individuals globally, has led to accusations of the UN’s irrelevance or, at best, its limited scope of action.
The call for reparations stemming from this resolution has been a particularly contentious point. The idea of demanding financial restitution from nations and populations who did not directly participate in historical slavery, and from individuals who bear no ancestral connection to slave ownership, is viewed by many as unfair and economically exploitative. The argument is often made that current generations should not be held accountable for the sins of distant ancestors, and that any pursuit of reparations should target descendants of actual slave owners, rather than the general public of nations that have since worked to abolish the practice.
This perceived selective targeting and the demand for reparations have led to a significant political reaction. There are concerns that such an approach could fuel a dangerous political rightward shift, driven by resentment over what is seen as an unfair and hypocritical application of historical blame. The resolution, in this view, becomes less about genuine historical reckoning and more about a “cash grab” aimed at Western nations, exploiting historical guilt without a comprehensive or equitable approach to the multifaceted history of slavery and its enduring legacies.
The abstentions and votes against the resolution highlight a deep skepticism regarding its true purpose and effectiveness. Many nations that abstained, particularly in Europe, have themselves invested heavily in ending the transatlantic slave trade, contributing financially and politically to its abolition. For these nations, the resolution appears to be a performative gesture that risks alienating populations and diverting attention from the more pressing issue of contemporary forms of slavery.
The criticism that the UN is a “toothless organization of busy bodies” often surfaces in these discussions. Many feel that the UN, despite its pronouncements, lacks the practical power to address ongoing human rights abuses and systemic injustices. The declaration of the transatlantic slave trade as the “gravest crime” feels like a symbolic act that will not translate into tangible action against those perpetuating slavery today, particularly in regions where it might offend powerful interests.
Moreover, the debate over “gravest crime” distracts from the fundamental wrongness of all forms of slavery and human exploitation. The UN’s focus on historical quantification could inadvertently diminish the horrors of other atrocities, including ongoing genocides and extreme forms of modern-day trafficking. The argument that modern-day slavery, in its sheer scale, might surpass historical instances further complicates the UN’s singular focus.
Ultimately, the UN’s vote to describe the transatlantic chattel slave trade as the “gravest crime against humanity” has sparked widespread debate, highlighting deep divisions in how history is interpreted, accountability is assigned, and justice is sought. While acknowledging the immense suffering caused by this historical period, the resolution’s narrow focus, its implications for reparations, and its silence on modern-day slavery have led many to question its wisdom, fairness, and the very effectiveness of the United Nations itself in addressing the complex and persistent challenges of human exploitation.