The Netherlands abstained from voting on a UN decision on the history of slavery. Bitter reactions: ‘Apologies will be reversed in a moment’

The transatlantic slave trade is officially the “most serious crime against humanity”, the United Nations decided last Wednesday. The resolution was tabled by Ghana and supported by 123 countries. Three countries voted against: the United States, Israel and Argentina. The Netherlands and 51 other Member States abstained from voting.

According to António Guterres, UN Secretary General, the transatlantic slave trade has eroded the core of human existence, torn families apart and devastated communities. Slavery lasted almost four hundred years. At least 12.5 million Africans were kidnapped and sold between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries.

The resolution is not legally binding, but is intended to encourage countries to take “concrete steps towards solutions” and reparations for descendants of enslaved people. The vote took place on a day of symbolic significance, International Day of Remembrance for Victims of Slavery.

‘Apologies insincere’

The entire European Union abstained from voting. In the Dutch explanation of vote, the Permanent Representative to the United Nations writes, among other things, that the Netherlands remains committed “unabatedly” to “combat racism and discrimination”. But the Netherlands cannot “agree to the introduction of a hierarchy of crimes against humanity,” the representative writes. It concerns the words ‘most serious crime’: that would imply that other human rights violations would be less serious. The Netherlands says it does not support this.

The representative further states that the Netherlands does not want international law to be applied retroactively. “Including the implication of a legal obligation to pay damages for acts that did not violate international law at the time of the act.”

The Dutch UN representative emphasizes “the deep injustice” of slavery, and points to the apology that the Dutch government offered in 2022 for the role of the Dutch state in the past of slavery. King Willem-Alexander joined this a year later.

At the time, the government made 200 million euros available to stimulate knowledge and awareness about the history of slavery. “We share not only the past, but also the future. So today we put a comma, not a period,” said then Prime Minister Mark Rutte (VVD) in his speech.

But “if you say there is a comma, we expect there to be more,” says Jerry Afriyie, former leader of Kick Out Zwarte Piet, human rights activist and poet. The formal apology from the Dutch government is “reversed” by the abstention from voting, Afriyie believes. “We have taken steps forward with the apology. These are being reversed. This choice comes across as if you are not taking descendants seriously. It makes the excuses insincere.”

‘Awareness Fund’

This opinion is shared by the National Institute for the History of Slavery and Heritage (NiNsee): “What are the earlier apologies from both Prime Minister and King worth if this global recognition is not supported by the Netherlands?” said chairman Dave Ensberg-Kleijkers in a statement. declaration. The organization sees that the Dutch position has caused unrest in the Afro-Caribbean community in the Netherlands, and in the Caribbean and Suriname. According to the NiNsee, the Netherlands is ignoring “the importance of organizing a process of recovery and repair” by not voting at the UN.

That is exactly the sticking point, says Dagmar Oudshoorn, former chairman of the Advisory Board of the Dialogue Group on the History of Slavery. “The UN resolution is about repairs, but the 200 million euros from the Netherlands were not intended for that. That was an ‘awareness fund’.” There was never any question of reparations, despite the express advice of her college.

The government mainly wanted to use the 200 million euros to integrate more knowledge and awareness about the history of slavery into education, to ‘recognize and recognize’ the history of slavery (which is why the Commemoration Committee on the History of Slavery was established) and to combat discrimination.

But descendants of enslaved people do not need to be made aware of the damage of slavery, Oudshoorn emphasizes. “Recovery is much broader than that. We have not even started on repairs in the Netherlands.” The Netherlands should not do this because they now have to adhere to the UN resolution, says Oudshoorn, “but because they have apologized. Recovery is inextricably linked to that.”

If reparations are to be made, they will never be able to pay for the “injustice that has been done to people,” says Afriyie. “There is no amount of money in the world that can right the greatest crimes.” Investing in eliminating the disadvantaged position of descendants is a real ‘repair’ according to Afriyie.

“We think reparations for the Second World War are very normal, and rightly so. But the slave trade is also not far away, there are people whose grandfathers and grandmothers still lived in slavery. Not everything went well after the abolition. The consequences of slavery are still felt.” Discrimination, institutional racism and exclusion are still present, he says. “The Netherlands has become diverse because of our colonial and slavery past, because of our crimes against humanity. But now, at an international and historical moment, the current Netherlands is also abandoning its norms, values ​​and humanity.”

Give a gift





Part





Email the editor