ANALYSIS: Can UN’s transatlantic slavery decision deliver meaningful reparations?

The UN General Assembly’s landmark resolution is likely to be stymied by a world divided on how to right past wrongs.

A Ghana-led resolution declaring the trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialised chattel enslavement the ‘gravest crime against humanity’ was adopted at the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on 25 March. Most countries (122) voted in favour, while 52, including all 27 European Union (EU) states, abstained. Argentina, Israel and the United States (US) voted against.

The resolution requires member states, individually and collectively, to engage in inclusive, good-faith dialogue on reparatory justice, including formal apologies, financial compensation and restitution.

It is a win for Africans and people of African descent worldwide, but it is non-binding and has no enforcement mechanism. The UN’s 2001 Durban Declaration against racism and related intolerance – also non-binding – has seen no measurable outcome.

The declaration acknowledges that slavery and the slave trade are crimes against humanity that require remedy. In contrast, the new resolution focuses on transatlantic slavery, which is described as the gravest of crimes against humanity, and explicitly calls for reparations.

The US’ opposition to the resolution and abstentions by most European countries, the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand underscore the stark divergences on historical accountability.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s recent call for Europe to take pride in its heritage was widely criticised for appearing to valorise colonialism as a foundation of Western civilisation. His comments came amid US criticism of Europe’s migration policies and the UK’s ceding of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius in line with legal rulings and 2019 UN General Assembly resolutions.

Meanwhile, in Addis Ababa, the 14-15 February AU summit adopted a declaration recognising ‘slavery, deportation and [colonisation] as crimes against humanity and genocide against the peoples of Africa.’ This crystallises Africa’s long-held views on the impact of slavery, colonialism and continued imperialism as detailed during the first Pan-African conference on reparations in 1993.

Africa’s reparation agenda reached its crescendo with the AU’s 2025 theme, ‘Justice for Africans and People of African Descent Through Reparations’, including the AU’s declaration of 2026-2035 as a decade of reparations.

The February AU summit decision called for an African-based Global Reparations Fund to support indigenous peoples’ development, education, restitution, cultural institutions and activities aimed at addressing systemic racism. Contributors should include beneficiaries of the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism, including states, institutions and the private sector.

The proposed fund would be managed by the AU and Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM), which plays a key role in setting the pace for reparations for people of African descent. A CARICOM Reparations Commission was established in 2013 with a 10-point plan for reparatory justice.

AU champion for reparations, Ghanaian President John Mahama, said the UN resolution was ‘a pathway to healing and reparative justice.’ During the debates, the US, UK and EU recognised slavery’s ills, but argued against hierarchies among crimes against humanity and the retroactive application of international rules. The US said the resolution was a ‘cynical usage of historical wrongs as a leverage point.’

Indeed, concerns over describing the transatlantic trade as the ‘gravest’ crime against humanity are justified, given the heinous nature of genocide and the trans-Saharan slave trade, in which African actors were culpable.

However, the 25 March vote recognises the debilitating impact of transatlantic slavery, which forcibly displaced millions of Africans. It created a global diaspora through a brutal system of slavery and colonialism that reshaped the demographic, economic and social fabric of the modern world.

Its impact continues to manifest in systemic racism, neo-colonialism and predatory economic partnerships, such as the CFA franc currency system controlled by France and used by 14 Central and West African countries.

Western opposition indicates that requests for reparations will be met by pushbacks or tokenism, which might lead to re-victimisation. Affected countries and populations must be proactive. The results of persistent advocacy and judicial processes leading to the UK’s Chagos decision and the return of artefacts to African countries show that sustained and constructive engagement is critical.

Driven by decades of activism, Belgium in 2020 and 2022 expressed regret for colonial atrocities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Germany apologised in 2021 for the 1904-1908 Namibia genocide and pledged funds as a reconciliation gesture.

Key multilateral efforts include the proposed Global Reparations Fund, UN Security Council reform, restructuring of international financial systems to reflect African interests, and activism to cancel unfair debts.

However, African countries often agree on collective measures at the multilateral level but succumb to external sway at the national level. For example, many welcome foreign military bases in their territory despite several AU Peace and Security Council decisions against this. So decisive efforts are needed by governments, especially to address injustices in current and future resource agreements with external powers and multinational corporations.

Tanzania approved new laws in 2017, enabling it to renegotiate mining deals to secure greater revenue shares from its natural resources. And the DRC’s renegotiation of its 2008 deal with Chinese firms requires China to increase infrastructure investment from $3 billion to $7 billion. The Economic Community of West African States and the Alliance of Sahel States are separately seeking to introduce new currencies to replace the French-controlled CFA franc.

Despite Africa’s vast potential, years of providing cheap raw resources to industrialised nations have sustained poverty and underdevelopment. African countries must push for trading structures that foster industrialisation in the medium to long term to improve the economic value of resources.

And countries seeking systemic reparations must grow in domestic accountability, addressing their own corruption and resource mismanagement.

African countries and the AU must double down on dialogue and, where necessary, conciliatory measures to secure the return of cultural properties and artefacts. The 2025 Addis Ababa Declaration on Reparations calls for a robust monitoring system that maintains pressure where reparation efforts stall at the local, national, continental and global levels.

Lasting reparations depend on addressing internalised racism and the deep-seated inferiority complex engendered by slavery and colonialism.

The AU, Caribbean countries and diaspora communities globally must emphasise to international partners that the demand for restitution is not adversarial. Rather, it is a deliberate effort to achieve mutual redress and reconciliation.

Ndubuisi Christian Ani, Senior Researcher and Project Lead, African Peace and Security Governance, Institute for Security Studies (ISS), Addis Ababa

(This article was first published by ISS Today, a Premium Times syndication partner. We have their permission to republish.)