A fund to end modern slavery, rather than ill-conceived reparations

Slavery of all kinds is unequivocally wrong. Yet, as I have written elsewhere it was often thought of as a normal part of everyday life in the past (see my Reflections on slavery: past, present and future). By modern standards, thankfully, that is not usually seen as “right” (but see further below). Few parts of the world have been untouched by slavery – as much as through its people being enslaved as by them using slaves. The arguments in favour of reparations are deeply problematic, and those advocating for such payments, especially those who should know better such as the Commonwealth Secretary General and the Archbishop of Canterbury, should instead contribute to practical action in helping to create a fund to end modern slavery. As Trevor Phillips has recently commented, the “Slavery reparations call is Caribbean theatre”. Those who argue for reparations do so largely for their own selfish political interests. Likewise, it is good to see the UK Prime Minister unequivocally saying that he rules out financial reparations.

The notion of financial reparations for past slavery is deeply problematic for at least six main reasons:

• First, it is widely agreed that International Law only applies at the time when an act occurs. As Jonathan Sumption comments, “International obligations are not retrospective. The International Law Commission’s articles on the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts are clear: ‘An act of a state does not constitute a breach of an international obligation unless the state is bound by the obligation in question at the time the act occurs’.” There is therefore no legal basis for claims for reparatory payments.
• Second, slavery has been widely practised, and was indeed seen as the global norm, for more than 2000 years; the British role in the Transatlantic slave, although deeply harmful, was only a relatively small percentage of the total. If the British people are to be asked to pay reparations for this role, should not the Turks be asked to pay to countries from which the Ottoman Empire took its slaves, should not Italy be asked to pay reparations for the “civilising” ravages of the Roman Empire, should not the Nordic countries be asked to pay for the Viking slave trade, should not the Arab states pay for the African slave trade prior to European involvement therein? Few would argue in the affirmative.
• Third, as unpalatable as it may seem to many, much of the Transatlantic slave trade was actually enabled by African people. Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani has thus written bravely and honestly about the role that her Nigerian ancestors and other Africans played in the slave trade. The African slave trade existed long before Europeans exploited it still further. Should African states be required to pay reparations? The Commonwealth Secretary General is from Ghana and I am sure she would not argue as she does if her ancestors had been slavers. Yet I have heard several of my Ghanaian friends talk openly and honestly about the usually unspoken role that their collective ancestors did indeed have in the slave trade (see my Reflections on slavery: past, present and future, and also Trevor Phillips’ 2020 essay). Few would argue that Africa states should pay reparations.
• Fourth, the notion of reparations payments to former slaves emerged largely as a USAn idea, during and following their Civil War (1861-1865), albeit that early calls for reparations there go back to the late 18th century, particularly through the actions of Quakers. These were immediate payments to former slaves, and it is problematic to equate them with retrospective payments for actions two centuries or more ago. The continued debate in the USA about the lasting impact of slavery, and the socio-economic marginalisation of black citizens adds fuel to the debate, but the USA is fundamentally different from Europe. In the contemporary period, it should also be asked “who should receive payments?”. Many of those living in states calling for reparations are not descended from slaves. If reparations were to be deemed appropriate, a case could surely also be made that countries from whom slaves were taken should receive financial recompense because their labour and wider contributions to their societies were taken away? How should their contribution to slavery noted above be measured against this?
• Fifth, the historic role of Britain in seeking to end slavery should not be ignored – although many of those arguing for reparations continue to claim that this is irrelevant. Following years of anti-slavery campaigning by advocates such as William Wilberforce, Britain abolished slavery in 1807 and the Royal Navy actively sought to suppress the trade, reportedly freeing some 150,000 people by 1865. Likewise, the somewhat problematic Province of Freedom in what became Sierra Leone was first settled in 1787 by formerly enslaved black people, although it was not until 1792 with an influx of more than a thousand former slaves from North America that the settlement of Freetown became firmly established through the agency of the Sierra Leone Company. Furthermore, while it is impossible to calculate the exact amount of aid (or Official Development Assistance) given to Commonwealth countries by Britain since their independence, this is not insubstantial. Development Aid is deeply problematic, but its failure to achieve lasting improvements in the lives of the world’s poorest people suggests that even if vast amounts were given to the governments “demanding” reparations it would not actually lead to the social and economic benefits claimed.
• Last, and most important, we can never be responsible for our ancestors’ actions. We were not there when they did what they did. We cannot fully understand the social, political, cultural and economic structures within which they lived their lives.

Building on this last point, we all have responsibilities to learn from the past so that we can act wisely in the present to create a better future. Slavery has still not been eliminated, although its definition has changed. Modern slavery still exists; it is estimated that there are some 50 million people across the world today who are slaves. This is around four times as many as the total number of Africans transported in more than three centuries of the transatlantic slave trade. We can do something about this; we cannot change the past. Surely it is better that we should all be working together to eliminate slavery once and for all? This is something we can achieve, if only we collectively had the will to do so.

Rather than focusing on the past we cannot change, surely it would be better instead to create a Global Fund to Eliminate Slavery (GFES). Britain could take a leading role in this and Commonwealth countries could unite together in contributing to it. Surely, under wise leadership, this could have been a forward looking vision for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting taking place in Antigua and Barbuda this week. Divisions in the Commonwealth over reparations will undoubtedly lead to its further demise and disintegration into irrelevance. As someone who sought to serve the Commonwealth in active roles for more than a decade I very much regret this. I am of course very deeply saddened by slavery, past present and future, but I cannot apologise for something I have not ever done. I have not owned slaves and want to do all I can to change the minds of those who still do.