It was a voting relationship as is often the case at the United Nations. Roughly speaking, the global South was opposed to the West. The UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor on Wednesday a resolution introduced by Ghana which characterizes the transatlantic slave trade as the “worst crime against humanity” ever. 52 countries, including the Netherlands and other countries involved in the slave trade, abstained from voting. The US, Israel and Argentina were the only countries that voted against.
The 123 countries that voted in favor of the resolution want to create a “globally shared consciousness”, Ghanaian Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa explained. a press conference after the vote. “So that we can continue processing and prevent such a crime from ever happening again.” He wants a future that is “more just, more inclusive and more deeply human.”
The resolution is seen by the petitioners as a next step that not only recognizes the suffering of slavery, but should also lead towards recovery – both material and intangible. African countries have been trying to get reparations for slavery on the international agenda for more than two decades. Last year, the African Union decided to make them a diplomatic spearhead.
Hierarchy
Ablakwa said earlier at the BBC not wanting to rank historical suffering. But that was what happened in the second paragraph of the resolution with the choice of words “the most serious”, and what struck the Western countries. The passage was also highlighted by the Dutch Permanent Representative to the UN. The Netherlands could not agree, according to the explanation of vote, because of the “hierarchy among crimes against humanity”, with the transatlantic slave trade at the top of the list.
In addition, the Netherlands indicated that it has difficulty with the way in which international law is applied “retroactively”. Slave trade, the Netherlands argues, was not yet punishable when it took place.
Why wouldn’t human trafficking in Asia, for example, be seen as equally serious?
Between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries, 12 to 15 million people in Africa were kidnapped and shipped to the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, where they were forced to work as slaves. They lost their names, their language, their native land and their humanity. During the journey alone, an estimated 2 million people died. The Dutch government offered at the end of 2022 apologies for the role of the state in the history of slavery. The government then allocated 200 million euros to stimulate knowledge and awareness about the history of slavery.
The UN resolution is not surprising, says Karwan Fatah-Black, slavery historian at Leiden University, because anti-slavery and anti-discrimination are important pillars of the UN. He understands the structure of the resolution less well: “The transatlantic human trafficking was one of the circuits in which the Netherlands was involved. Why should human trafficking in Asia, for example, not be seen as equally serious?”
Missed opportunity
“You could have seen it coming from a mile away that this would be a breaking point between Europe and the rest of the world. Not a single European country agreed.” says Fatah-Black. He thinks that is a missed opportunity. “If that point had not been included, European countries should have said much more clearly: we do not want to pay reparations.” Now many countries that did not vote could ‘hide’ behind the hierarchy in suffering as a reason for their abstention instead of talking about reparations.
Also read
The Netherlands is irreversibly a postcolonial nation
But European countries that had no role in the slave trade also chose to abstain. “Poland would not have had a problem with reparations. So that indicates that there is another problem,” says Fatah-Black about the introduction of hierarchy. “How can Poland, as a crime scene of the Holocaust, say that transatlantic human trafficking is the greatest crime against humanity?”
Opportunity argument
Liliane Umubyeyi of the Brussels think tank African Futures Lab, notices that after the resolution there is a lot of talk about the term “most serious crimes against humanity”. But according to her, that is not the heart of the matter for the petitioners. “Those are reparations.” Umubyeyi calls the emphasis that European countries place on the hierarchy of suffering “an excuse”; a fear-driven argument for not voting along with the resolution. “If you really acknowledge the tragedies, you wouldn’t need such an excuse.”
In the explanation of vote, the Dutch UN representative emphasized that the Netherlands will adopt a “constructive” position in the EU during “negotiations” on the implementation of the resolution. It calls, among other things, for recovery through dialogue about apologies and compensation, and for the return of looted art and investment in commemorations and education about the history of slavery.
How those talks will proceed depends on the rapidly changing international relations. According to Umubyeyi, European countries would do well to enter into alliances with pro-voters from the global south. Now that international law is coming under further pressure due to the illegal war between the US and Israel in Iran, she believes there is an opportunity to work on a new order that focuses on justice.
“On the one hand you have countries like the US, Israel and Argentina, which are taking an extreme right turn. On the other hand, the rest of the world with a call for justice. Somewhere in between are the European countries.” European countries that want to adhere to rule of law principles must decide which side they want to be on, says Umubyeyi. According to her, those countries have an interest in entering into alliances with countries in the global south. “They should support the countries that argue for reparations. That would not only be consistent, but it would also make them stronger internationally, otherwise they would become increasingly isolated.”
‘Polarising’
The resolution is primarily a step in the struggle for reparations, as Gert Oostindie, emeritus professor of colonial and postcolonial history, knows. He fears that the resolution could have a “polarizing” effect between those in the Netherlands who are positive about the recognition of slavery and those who object to it. “There are now doubts among some as to whether the government has really taken that recognition seriously,” says Oostindie. “I don’t think that is an issue. But the government rightly does not want to join the race of: this is the worst ever.”
The Netherlands has already taken significant steps towards recognizing the history of slavery, says Fatah-Black. He sees how slavery history has become increasingly important in recent years [is gaan] part of the Dutch identity and how we look at the past.” That is just the beginning, say all those involved. After the first step of recognition, the conversation about repairs must now be about shaping justice and recovery.
I hope not just the recognition of slavery window dressing was
The disappointment among descendants about the Dutch position at the UN can be a complicating factor, Fatah-Black thinks: “People who have fought for an apology see this confirming their fear that the Netherlands is not actually prepared to talk about this.” Like his colleague Oostindie, he does not expect that the UN resolution will change the process in the Netherlands or the course of the Dutch government internationally.
Also read
What is the harvest after a year of commemorating the past of slavery?
The day after the resolution, social organizations of descendants of enslaved people responded to the Dutch attitude with a mixture of skepticism and disappointment. The National Institute of Dutch Slavery History and Legacy (NiNsee) stated for example, that by not voting, the Netherlands is ignoring “the importance of organizing a process of recovery and repair.”
Peggy Wijntuin, advisor on the Dutch slavery and colonial past, hopes that the historians are right, but she shares the concerns of social organizations: “I hope that it is not just window dressing was. When you take a step forward, it also comes with responsibilities. Not just: buy them off with some subsidy,” says Wijntuin. “Something has started to move with the recognition. We cannot go back. And especially not back to the silence that may once have been there.”
