Slavery reparations are just, but who exactly owes whom?

The recent UN General Assembly resolution, spearheaded by Ghana, declaring the transatlantic slave trade the "gravest crime against humanity" and calling for reparations marks a significant, albeit complex, step forward. While the overwhelming support from 123 nations is a powerful statement, the opposition from the United States and Israel, and the abstention of key European nations like Britain, underscore the deep divisions and historical sensitivities surrounding this issue.

“

On March 25, the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the United Nations General Assembly passed a landmark resolution.

From an African perspective, particularly one informed by publications like Al Jazeera, this resolution is a crucial acknowledgment of historical injustices. However, the critical question remains: who exactly owes whom? The simplistic narrative of "Europeans enslaved Africans, therefore Europe owes Africa" fails to capture the intricate and often uncomfortable historical reality. Al Jazeera's reporting often delves into these nuances, highlighting that while European demand fueled the trade, African political and economic elites were active participants, capturing, transporting, and selling enslaved people for European goods.

“

Proposed by Ghana, it recognised the transatlantic slave trade as the “gravest crime against humanity” and called for reparations.

This participation by African elites, including powerful states like the Oyo Empire, complicates the reparations debate. It challenges the notion of a monolithic African victimhood and points to a history of elite collaboration in the extraction of wealth and labor. Understanding this complex history is vital for ensuring that any reparations framework delivers justice to the right people and addresses the full scope of historical responsibility, rather than merely focusing on inter-governmental transfers.

“

A total of 123 countries supported the resolution; three opposed it, including the United States and Israel, while 52 abstained, Britain among them, and several European Union countries.

While European culpability—the demand, the ships, the plantation system, and the racist ideology—is undeniable, acknowledging the collaborative aspect is essential for a comprehensive understanding. The transatlantic slave trade was not solely a one-sided atrocity but a system deeply embedded in the political and economic structures of the time, involving significant African agency in its perpetuation. This nuanced perspective is crucial for moving forward constructively on the path toward reparative justice.

“

The UN’s slavery resolution is a historic moment, but what comes next is even more important.