|
|
|
Slave trade 'a crime against humanity'
Historic declaration at anti-racism conference,
but Africans urge more
By Jullyette Ukabiala
From Africa Recovery,
Vol.15 #3, October 2001, page 5
Africa's campaign
for reparations for the injustices of slavery and colonialism recently
gained significant ground. "Slavery and the slave trade were appalling
tragedies ... a crime against humanity, and should always have been so,"
declared the final declaration of the 31 August-7 September anti-racism
conference in Durban, South Africa.
"Something historic
has indeed happened here," South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini
Zuma, president of the conference, proclaimed in her closing statement.
"We have agreed that the depredation of the systems of slavery and colonialism
had a degrading and debilitating impact on those who are black, broadly
defined."
Ms. Amina Mohamed,
Kenya's ambassador to the UN Office in Geneva and spokesperson of the
African delegations in Durban, noted some of the document's shortcomings,
especially the lack of an explicit apology from the former slave-trading
nations or any commitment to specific reparations aimed at compensating
those who suffered from the trade. Although the compromise agreement "is
terribly imperfect," she said, it still "provides a good basis to build
on."
UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights Mary Robinson, who served as conference secretary-general,
saw the outcome as positive. The document, she said, "sets out the issue
in plain, unequivocal language for the first time" and "will resonate
throughout the world and especially among those who still bear the scars"
of slavery.
The last-ditch agreement
on this language -- along with a separate compromise on the Middle East
conflict -- saved the Durban conference from failure. Disagreements on
the two sets of issues had already caused the withdrawal of the US and
Israeli delegations on the fourth day and brought walk-out threats from
some European delegates. Inability to reach agreement on the final document
would have totally derailed the World Conference against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, as it was officially
known.
Campaign for reparations
The debates in Durban
marked the latest phase of a decade-long campaign by African countries
and representatives of the African diaspora to gain international recognition
for the injustices perpetrated against them in the era of the slave trade.
The issue was not just one of righting an historical wrong, they argued,
but also of addressing the lasting legacy of poverty and discrimination
suffered over centuries by Africa and its descendants.
In the early 1990s,
the Organization of African Unity (OAU) officially embraced the idea of
making claims for atonement, including specific reparations, for slavery
and colonialism. African heads of state, during their 1992 summit, created
an eminent persons group to explore the issue. Co-chaired by the late
Nigerian pro-democracy leader Chief Moshood Abiola and former UNESCO Director-General
Amadou-Mahtar M'Bow, the group organized a pan-African conference on reparations
in 1993.
Held in Abuja, Nigeria,
it laid out Africa's main arguments on the issue. The Abuja Proclamation
observed that the damage caused by slavery, colonialism and neo-colonialism
"is not a thing of the past, but is painfully manifest in the damaged
lives of contemporary Africans from Harlem to Harare, in the damaged economies
of the black world from Guinea to Guyana, from Somalia to Suriname." It
argued that a moral debt is owed to African peoples and called for "full
monetary payment ... through capital transfer and debt cancellation."
Subsequently, demands that the slave trade be named a crime against humanity
and that the former slave-trading nations apologize for it were woven
into the case for reparations.
The campaign received
support from some African-American groups in the US, which in a parallel
effort were raising the notion of reparations from the US government for
the persistence of slavery in that country until the second half of the
19th century. And on the specific issue of an apology, it also gained
encouragement from the apology by Pope John Paul II "for the sins of Christian
Europe against Africa" during a 1991 visit to Senegal's Gorée Island,
one of the main transit centres for the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
Debate among Africans
From the beginning,
the call for reparations has stirred controversy. Some have argued that
the slave trade took place too long ago to make legal remedies possible,
and that disagreements over who would pay reparations, to whom, where
and in what form made the idea unworkable. Others noted that Africans
themselves had colluded with foreign slave dealers by kidnapping and selling
their people into slavery. Moreover, Africans also practiced slavery,
and in some African countries they continue to do so.
In the months leading
up to the Durban conference, differences emerged over how to proceed with
the campaign. While there was general agreement on having the slave trade
declared a crime against humanity, not everyone felt that an explicit
apology or financial reparations were worth pursuing.
Senegal's President
Abdoulaye Wade sparked a national debate by arguing that the demand for
reparations trivialized the impact of slavery by suggesting that it could
be compensated with money. He noted that some Africans, including his
own ancestors, had owned slaves. At the Durban conference, he maintained
that "the consequences of slavery are not the same in different regions.
The problem of reparations has been raised in generic terms and we cannot
have worldwide consensus on this." He proposed a case-by-case approach
that also would consider the position of the African diaspora.
During the preparatory
meetings for the conference, South Africa, trying to dampen the controversy
over African calls for an apology, suggested instead that they accept
a more modest expression of "regret," which the European delegations were
prepared to back. It hoped that such flexibility would persuade European
countries to be more accommodating on other issues of interest to Africa.
Yet at the conference, South Africa joined the rest of the African Group
in a common position on reparations and apology.
Nigerian President
Olusegun Obasanjo made it clear that his country stood firmly behind the
demand for an explicit apology. "The wider international community has
consistently failed to appreciate the reality that is particularly painful
for us Africans.... Apology must be extended by states which practiced
and benefited from slavery, the slave trade or colonialism.... For us
in Africa, an apology is a deep feeling of remorse, expressed with the
commitment that never again will such acts be practiced."
Yet President Obasanjo
also questioned the merits of reparations. Once an apology was obtained,
he said, continuing to seek reparations would no longer make sense. Not
"every apology must be followed by monetary compensation.... We must not
forget that monetary compensation, as it is being proposed, may further
hurt the dignity of Africa."
President Pedro Pires
of Cape Verde likewise wondered how reparations could reasonably be assessed,
while President Denis Sassou-Nguesso of the Republic of the Congo thought
that declaring slavery a crime against humanity would be adequate reparation.
Others, however, persisted
in calling for both an apology and reparations. Zambian Vice-President
Enoch Kavindele argued for an "international compensation scheme" for
the victims of the slave trade, along with a "development restoration
fund" for countries that were affected by colonialism. Mr. Martin Belinga-Eboutou,
Cameroon's UN ambassador (and currently president of the UN Economic and
Social Council), said that reparations "should not be considered compassion
or charity," but an "affirmation of basic human rights."
A few delegations
raised particular national concerns. Angolan Deputy Minister of Foreign
Affairs Georges Chikoti noted that his country had not only suffered from
the slave trade and European colonialism, but following its independence
in 1975 was also "invaded by troops of the apartheid regime." Despite
a UN Security Council resolution calling on South Africa to pay reparations,
"to this day not a penny was given, nor apology made." Rwanda's Minister
of Justice and Institutional Relations Jean de Dieu Mucyo drew attention
to the 1994 genocide in his country, stating that "effective justice for
the victims is needed. That means not only prosecution of the perpetrators,
but assistance to the victims to help them reintegrate into society."
European reluctance
One factor that complicated
the African campaign was the reluctance of the 15-member European Union
(EU) to agree to outright recognition of the slave trade as a crime against
humanity. Some EU members are former slave-trading nations, and feared
that such a declaration could open them up to legal action.
Once the conference
issued its declaration and Programme of Action, Belgian Foreign Minister
Louis Michel, speaking on behalf of the European delegation, sought to
minimize their potential significance. They are "political, not legal
documents," he said. "These documents cannot impose obligations or liability
or a right to compensation on anyone. Nor are they intended to do so."
Reportedly, such concern about future liability was a reason that both
the US and the EU had tried to keep the issue of slavery and reparations
off the conference agenda in the first place.
Several European countries
that had been heavily involved in the slave trade also strongly resisted
Africa's call for a straight apology. As a result, the conference agreed
only that it "profoundly regrets the massive human suffering and the tragic
plight of millions." It noted that some countries had already "taken the
initiative to apologize and have paid reparation where appropriate," suggesting
that precisely what to do should be left to countries' discretion.
Among the few European
delegates who seemed to lean towards the African view was Mr. Roger van
Boxtel, the Netherlands' minister for urban policy and integration of
ethnic minorities. While expressing "deep remorse" for his country's involvement
in the slave trade, he added that "an expression of remorse is not enough
and cannot be used as an excuse for taking no action in the present. It
is important to implement structural measures that benefit the descendants
of former slaves and future generations."
Ultimately, the conference
deflected the call for specific reparations. The declaration did acknowledge
arguments that the historical injustices of the slave trade "have undeniably
contributed to poverty, underdevelopment, marginalization, social exclusion,
economic disparities, instability and insecurity in different parts of
the world." It recognized, in vague terms, the need for remedial measures,
"programmes for the social and economic development" of affected societies
and Africans in the diaspora. These would include "debt relief, poverty
eradication, building or strengthening democratic institutions, promotion
of foreign direct investment and market access." It also urged the UN
and the developed countries to support the continent's New African Initiative
(see article "New African Initiative stirs cautious hope").
Pressing on
Not fully satisfied
with the compromise reached in Durban, a number of African countries have
pledged to continue pressing for an outright apology and reparations.
The process had only begun in Durban, stated Ms. Mohamed of Kenya, and
"it must continue."
According to Ms. Dlamini
Zuma, the South African foreign minister, "an apology is necessary, not
for monetary gain, but to restore the dignity and humanity of those who
suffered." South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, also pressing for reparations,
declared that payment was a way for the former slave traders to say, "We
are sorry for what happened."
Prof. Ali Mazrui,
an internationally known Kenyan academic, cautions that it will be difficult
for Africa to press its case. "It is not politically realistic at this
stage," he told Africa Recovery, "to expect the concerned Western
states to make a commitment to reparations and an apology, due to the
highly political nature of the issue." A member of the eminent persons
group on reparations established by the OAU in 1992, he is nevertheless
optimistic over the long term. "An apology is on the way," he says. "The
crusade is one that will take a while to reach its objectives." In the
short term, Prof. Mazrui regards the outcome of the Durban conference
as "a major step forward." The issue "is now receiving more and more global
attention, even if it is still nowhere near implementation."
|
|
