The UN Called Slavery 'The Gravest Crime.' Now What?

When Britain abolished slavery in the 1830s, it paid reparations — not to the people who had been enslaved, but to the people who had owned them. The sum, in today's money, was roughly $21 billion.

Nearly two centuries later, the United Nations General Assembly voted this week to declare the transatlantic slave trade "the gravest crime against humanity." 123 countries voted in favor. Three — the United States, Argentina, and Israel — voted against. 52 countries, including the United Kingdom and EU member states, abstained. The resolution carries no legal force. But the numbers tell a story of their own.

What Happened, and Why It Matters

The resolution, proposed by Ghana and championed by African and Caribbean nations, urges UN member states to consider formally apologizing for the slave trade and contributing to a reparations fund. No specific amount was named.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the vote with striking language, saying the wealth of many Western nations was "built on stolen lives and stolen labour." He described the slave trade not as mere forced labor, but as "a machinery of mass exploitation and deliberate dehumanisation of men, women and children."

The scale of what is being acknowledged is staggering. Between the 15th and 19th centuries, an estimated 12 to 15 million African men, women, and children were forcibly transported to the Americas. Roughly 2 million died aboard the slave ships. Brazil, the largest recipient of enslaved Africans at 4.9 million people, still shows the living legacy: Black Brazilians are twice as likely to live in poverty as white Brazilians, according to official statistics.

Almaz Teffera, a senior researcher on racism at Human Rights Watch, told the BBC that even a symbolic vote carries weight. "It is already a huge and significant step in political terms to have this debate at the UN," she said — while acknowledging it remains largely symbolic for now.

The Numbers Behind the Demand

The figures attached to reparations discussions are almost incomprehensible in scale. In 2023, CARICOM — a bloc of 15 Caribbean nations — published a study arguing that former colonial powers owe at least $33 trillion to Caribbean nations alone. That same year, Patrick Robinson, a leading judge at the International Court of Justice, calculated that 31 countries collectively owe $107 trillion for their role in and benefit from the slave trade.

For context: the entire US federal budget for 2025 was $7.1 trillion.

Sponsored

Advertise with Us

[email protected]

Sponsored

These numbers are less a realistic invoice than a measure of historical debt's magnitude. But they shape the political conversation — and the resistance to it.

There is historical precedent for government reparations. Since 1952, Germany has paid more than $80 billion to Jewish victims of the Nazi regime. But that process began while survivors were still alive. No government has ever paid reparations directly to descendants of enslaved Africans. When the Netherlands formally apologized for its role in slavery in 2022, it stopped short of direct payments, instead establishing a $230 million fund for "social initiatives" — a decision that drew both praise and sharp criticism from advocacy groups.

Why the Opposition Isn't Simply Denial

The US vote against the resolution wasn't framed as a defense of slavery. Dan Negrea, the US deputy ambassador to the UN, argued that designating one atrocity as "the gravest" creates a hierarchy of suffering — one that implicitly diminishes the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, and other mass crimes. It's a philosophical objection worth taking seriously, even if critics see it as a convenient deflection.

The deeper resistance runs along several fault lines. One is generational: should people alive today bear legal or financial responsibility for crimes committed by their ancestors? Another is technical: how do you identify descendants of the enslaved across centuries of migration, intermarriage, and diaspora? A third is legal: slavery was not only practiced but actively regulated by law in many countries during those centuries — does that complicate the basis for a legal claim?

Even Barack Obama, the first Black US president, never publicly endorsed a reparations policy during his two terms. Weeks before leaving office in 2016, he told writer Ta-Nehisi Coates that America's political system made reparations "practically unworkable."

The UK, which abstained rather than voted against, has its own awkward position. David Lammy, then Foreign Secretary, said during a 2024 visit to Nigeria that reparations "is not about the transfer of cash" — a formulation that satisfies almost no one on either side of the debate.

What a Non-Binding Vote Can Actually Do

The UN General Assembly cannot compel any country to write a check. But political legitimacy is not nothing.

Dr. Celeste Martinez, a researcher specializing in Spanish colonialism, argues that international pressure has already moved the needle. "Grassroots movements and pressure from international bodies like the UN are the reasons why many countries have started discussing reparation policies," she said. "Nobody is trying to change the past, but to address its consequences in the present."

For Dr. Erieka Bennett of the Diaspora African Forum, the vote carried personal weight that transcends policy. "It means that I'm acknowledged," she told the BBC. "It means that my ancestor finally rests."

But Dr. Esther Xosei, a British scholar and prominent figure in the global reparations movement, offered a cooler assessment. "It is a good victory, but let's remember this is only a declaration of intent," she said. "Hearts and minds will not be won at the UN. The real battle will be fought on the streets."

Luke Moffett, a legal expert at Queen's University Belfast, is even more direct: "Legally, it is a huge mountain that cannot be climbed."