Transatlantic Slave Trade Captive Africans were transferred to ships along the slave coast for the Transatlantic Slave Trade, c. 1880. /Image: Encyclopedia Britannica

The United Nations General Assembly has voted to recognize the enslavement of Africans in the transatlantic slave trade as the “worst crime against humanity,” a move that supporters say is aimed at confronting historical injustice and advancing reparative justice. But the vote exposed clear divisions. While a majority supported the resolution, Western countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, and European Union Member States either reject it outright or refuse to support it, not because of history per se, but because of how it should be defined, interpreted and acted upon today.

Resolutions around history, justice and reparations

The resolution was proposed by Ghana and passed with 123 votes in favor, 3 against (the United States, Israel and Argentina), and 52 abstentions (including the United Kingdom and all EU member states). It declares that “the trafficking of enslaved Africans and the racialized chattel slavery of Africans are the most serious crimes against humanity” and connects this history to the present through “the persistence of racial discrimination and neocolonialism.” In addition to recognition, the text calls on member states to engage in discussions on compensatory justice. This includes “a full and formal apology, restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction measures, assurances of non-repetition, and changes to laws, programs and services to address racism and systemic discrimination.” It also urged the “speedy and unhindered return” of cultural objects, including artworks, monuments and archives, to their countries of origin. Although General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, they carry significant political weight and are often used to shape global norms and debates.

Why did the United States vote against

USA While acknowledging the horror objected to the resolution, arguing that it raised legal and conceptual issues. U.S. Deputy Ambassador Dan Neglia said Washington “does not recognize the legal right to compensation for historical wrongs that were not illegal under international law at the time they occurred.” He also objected to the framing of the resolution itself, saying: “The United States also strongly objects to the resolution’s attempt to rank crimes against humanity on any type of hierarchy.” He added: “The assertion that some crimes against humanity are less serious than others objectively alleviates the suffering of countless victims and survivors of other atrocities throughout history.” Neglia further criticized what he described as “the cynical use of historical wrongs as leverage points to reallocate modern resources to peoples and countries distantly related to historical victims” and questioned who qualifies as recipients of reparative justice.He also argued that the resolution’s historical framing was selective, noting that the time periods mentioned were “clearly chosen for political reasons rather than historical accuracy,” noting that the African slave trade began well before the 15th century and continued well into the 19th century.

Why the UK and EU abstained from the vote

this U.K. and EU member states It did not oppose the resolution outright, but declined to support it, citing concerns about the legal principles and wording. Acting Ambassador to the United Nations James Kariuki, speaking on behalf of the UK, said the UK recognized the “abhorrent nature of slavery and the transatlantic slave trade” and acknowledged that its legacy “still leaves deep scars today”. However, he said the UK “continues to disagree with the underlying propositions of the text”. One major objection is to the idea of ​​ranking atrocities. Kariuki argued: “We must 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 also no obligation to provide reparations for historical acts that did not violate international law at the time they were committed.” The European Union has raised similar concerns. Gabriella Michaelidou, speaking on behalf of the EU, said the use of terms such as “most serious” was “legally inaccurate” and risked implying a “hierarchy of atrocity crimes”. She added that the resolution contained an “unbalanced interpretation of historical events” and expressed concern about “proposals to retroactively apply international rules that did not exist at the time, as well as proposals to demand compensation.” The UK and EU have both stressed that while they support efforts to commemorate and tackle modern forms of slavery, they cannot endorse the resolution in its current form.

Ghana’s case for recognition and reparative justice

For Ghana and its allies, the resolution is less about legal technicalities and more about historical recognition and long-term consequences. Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama, who supports the initiative, told the conference: “Today we come together in solemn unity to affirm the truth and seek a path to healing and restorative justice.” “The adoption of this resolution is a safeguard against forgetting,” he said. “Let us record that when history called us, we did the right thing to honor the millions of people who suffered the indignities of slavery.” Ghana’s Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa dismissed criticism that the resolution sought to rank suffering. “The perpetrators of the transatlantic slave trade were well known, Europeans, and the United States of America. We want them all to formally apologize to Africa and all people of African descent. “ He also clarified the intention behind compensation, telling the BBC: “We demand compensation and let’s be clear, African leaders are not asking for money for themselves. We want justice for the victims and support for causes, education and endowment funds, skills training funds.” Abraqua argued that the legacy of slavery is still evident today, adding: “Many generations continue to suffer exclusion and racism as the transatlantic slave trade separated millions of people from the African continent and impoverished them.”

Votes that reflect consensus and disagreement

The resolution was adopted on the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, which commemorates the estimated 12 to 15 million Africans who were forcibly transported over four centuries, with more than 2 million believed to have died during the journey. It marks one of the strongest formal acknowledgments of the transatlantic slave trade within the United Nations system, linking historical injustices to present-day inequalities and calling for a structured global response. At the same time, the split vote highlighted enduring divisions. While there is broad consensus about the brutality and historical significance of slavery, there is far less consensus on how to define this history in legal terms and whether slavery currently carries financial and political obligations.