UN General Assembly Adopts Resolution on Slavery, Sparking Dissent Over “Worst Crime” Language
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has adopted a resolution acknowledging the profound harm caused by slavery, urging member states to pursue “reparatory justice.” The resolution, formally UNGA A/80/L.48 and championed by Ghana on behalf of the African Group, passed on March 25th with a substantial 123 votes in favour. However, the decision was not without its critics, with three nations voting against it – Israel, the United States, and Argentina – and a further 52 countries abstaining.
The core of the disagreement lies in the resolution’s language describing slavery as potentially the “gravest” crime against humanity. While the resolution aims to address historical injustices through apologies, restitution, and the return of looted cultural artefacts, the specific phrasing has ignited debate and concern among some delegations.
Concerns Over “Hierarchy of Atrocities”
Israel, in its explanatory statement, articulated its opposition, stating that while it fully recognises the immense scale and brutality of slavery, it could not endorse the resolution’s wording. The nation argued that designating one crime against humanity as the “gravest” inadvertently creates a hierarchy. This, Israel contends, risks diminishing the significance of other horrific mass atrocities, including the Holocaust, by implying a comparative scale of suffering. The vote was not a denial of slavery’s historical impact, but rather a principled objection to the specific language used. Israel expressed regret that negotiations did not yield revisions that could have garnered wider consensus.
This sentiment was echoed by several Western delegations that ultimately abstained from voting. The United Kingdom, for instance, issued its own statement detailing its reservations. The UK firmly believes that establishing a hierarchy of historical atrocities is counterproductive. Such an approach, the UK explained, oversimplifies the multifaceted and widespread suffering experienced across different historical contexts. It also risks downplaying the experiences of communities whose trauma and suffering were equally profound. The UK’s position is that no single category of atrocities should be considered more or less significant than another.
The Push for Reparatory Justice
Despite the objections from a minority of nations, the resolution’s adoption signifies a significant step in the international community’s engagement with the legacy of slavery. The call for “reparatory justice” is multifaceted, encompassing a range of actions designed to acknowledge and address historical wrongs. These measures include:
- Formal Apologies: Official expressions of regret from nations and institutions involved in or benefiting from the slave trade and slavery.
- Restitution: The provision of resources and support to descendants of enslaved people and affected communities to address ongoing socio-economic disparities.
- Return of Looted Cultural Artefacts: The repatriation of cultural heritage and items of significant historical value that were taken during the era of slavery.
Supporters of the resolution argue that these measures are essential for true reconciliation and for rectifying the enduring consequences of slavery, which continue to impact societies globally. The adoption, even with dissenting votes, highlights a growing international imperative to confront these historical injustices and work towards tangible forms of redress. The debate over wording underscores the complex and sensitive nature of discussing historical atrocities and the ongoing challenge of finding language that is both inclusive and accurate in acknowledging the full spectrum of human suffering.
