OPINION: The UN declaration on African enslavement and the Atlantic Slave Trade offers challenges, opportunities

On Wednesday, March 25, 2026, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution declaring the European, Transatlantic trafficking of enslaved Africans and the racialized enslavement of Africans constituted history’s greatest crime against humanity. The vote was not even close. It was 123 to 3. The United States of America, Israel, and Argentina voted against it. Fifty-two countries abstained, the majority of them being members of the European Union.

Although this is a major news story, it has not received major coverage in the American press. That sets up a challenge for the Black press and for people whose families have been victimized, as well as for other people of conscience and good-will. Although there was no new revelation here, these same people and the same press are challenged to confront their governments on the issue.

To justify its “no” vote, the U.S.A. advanced several relatively weak arguments. One was that this country has a policy of not assenting to the idea of paying reparations in cases such as this. On that score one can advance at least two counters – how are victims to accept any apology or overtures of reconciliation as being sincere if there is no willingness to make amends, and although every condition is somewhat unique, what makes the idea of reparations in the case of the enslavement of Africans so different from that of reparation for the incarceration of the Japanese, for the seizure of Native American land, and even the support which America offered in the case of the Jewish holocaust in Eastern Europe? 

A second objection advanced by the American delegation was that what was now being put forth was the criminalization of actions which were not violations at the time in which they occurred. To this assertion, the American delegation can and should be directed to its own Declaration of Independence, which asserts the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as inalienable rights. Thus, the violation of these inalienable rights, these moral principles, can and should be acted upon at this time, especially since America agreed to them then and now; since human rights can and should be trumped by legal imperfections.

A third objection, the weakest of all, was to the idea of ranking of violations against humanity. When one views the sheer numbers of Africans seized and shipped (12 – 15 million) and the length of the phenomenon (over 400 years), it can easily be recognized as the greatest crime, that is without even adding to it the crime of colonizing of the weakened countries that had been de-populated. The American delegation cannot refute these and offered no data to demonstrate that any other crime against humanity was greater.

Another thing that stands out like a sore thumb in all of this is the fact that the opposing and abstaining delegations do not deny or argue against the reality of the crime or its gravity, nor deny the role played by their countries. They simply do not want the stigma, the international branding attached thereto, nor the idea of paying the cost for what has been done. The Israeli and Argentine delegations appear to have voted “no” in order to be supportive of the Trump regime. Those who abstained know the right side of history and may have done so in order to leave the Trump administration standing virtually alone on the wrong side.

The resolution is very clear in its condemnation and its call for payments into a reparations fund and for the return of cultural items taken from the African nations during the period in question. It does not include a monetary figure for such reparations nor an exhaustive list of the items taken, but is clear about the need for both to be honored.

The resolution was introduced by the Honorable Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa of Ghana, along with Ghana’s President John Dramani Mahama, who spoke on behalf of the African Group. Other groups supporting the resolution included the Latin American and Caribbean Group, the Asian Pacific Group, and the Western European Group, of which the General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock is a member and expressed support. Also, on hand to voice support for the resolution, were two young poets – Esther Phillips of Barbados and Shahaddah Jack of Canada. They represent not only the future, but an impressive way to publicize the issue as this future unfolds.

In addition to the challenge of publicizing the resolution and pressuring the American government to step-up to the responsibility of supporting reparations, there are other challenges which become opportunities. Among those are: enunciating concrete, practical ways in which reparations can and should be provided; developing lessons, platforms, and institutions that will counteract any attempts to distort, omit, or cover-up those aspects of history and their impact; and providing the type of school curricula, library offerings, and media programming that will assure that “we will never forget.”

By its action on March 25th, the UN General Assembly said what many have long known or come to know – the racialized nature of African enslavement and the trafficking during the Atlantic Slave Trade was more than just cruel and horrific; it was the greatest crime against humanity. Now it is up to us to help give meaning to the resolution rather than allow it to be swept under the rug as have so many others that were opposed by American regimes.