UN votes to designate slavery the worst crime against humanity. Photo: UN
The UN has adopted a landmark declaration, introduced by Ghana, recognizing the transatlantic slave trade as the “gravest crime against humanity,” in a move that has intensified calls for reparations from African and Caribbean countries.
Originally published in People's Dispatch.
On March 25, 2026, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a landmark resolution declaring the transatlantic trafficking and racialized chattel enslavement of Africans as the “gravest crime against humanity”. The decision, passed with 123 votes in favor, 3 against (Argentina, Israel, United States), and 52 abstentions, marks a historic shift in the international recognition of one of the most devastating systems in human history.
The resolution places reparations at the center of global justice discourse, affirming that addressing historical wrongs against Africans and people of African descent is both necessary and overdue.
A long struggle for reparations
The declaration represents the culmination of decades of Pan-African advocacy, intensified in recent years through coordinated diplomatic efforts led by the African Union (AU) and supported by the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).
In February 2026, African heads of state had already adopted a continental position recognizing slavery, deportation, and colonialism as crimes against humanity, setting the stage for the UN vote. At the forefront of this effort was Ghana’s President John Dramani Mahama, serving as the AU champion for reparations.
Ahead of the vote, Mahama told member states: “Let it be recorded that when history beckoned, we did what was right for the memory of the millions who suffered the indignity of the slave trade … Let our vote restore their dignity and humanity.”
UN Secretary-General António Guterres, in his address, described the transatlantic slave trade as; a “deep betrayal of human dignity”.
A system in which millions were abducted, one in seven dying during the Middle Passage, while a global economic order was constructed on exploitation, racial hierarchy, and violence sustained for over 400 years.
Further, Guterres emphasized that slavery was not just an isolated historical crime, but a “machinery of mass exploitation and deliberate dehumanization” whose legacies persist today in inequality and systemic racism.
By explicitly recognizing reparations as a “concrete step toward remedying historical wrongs,” the resolution advances a demand long championed by African and Caribbean movements.
Reparations debates have historically faced resistance from former colonial powers, often framed as impractical or legally complex. However, this declaration strengthens the argument that, the transatlantic slave trade constituted a crime under international moral law, its economic benefits were systematically extracted and accumulated and its harms remain measurable in structural inequalities, underdevelopment, and racial injustice.
Geopolitics of denial
The vote revealed deep geopolitical fractures. The opposition by the United States, Israel, and Argentina, alongside 52 abstentions, show ongoing resistance to fully confronting historical accountability. These positions reflect broader patterns of imperial power and reluctance to accept liability, particularly given the potential economic and legal implications of reparations.
From a Pan-African perspective, this resistance is not surprising. Princess Yanney, from the Pan-African Progressive Front, told Peoples Dispatch:
“The countries that voted against the motion; US, Israel, and Argentina. It is no secret that these countries particularly, even in the current situation in the Middle East (US and Israel), attest to them being major drivers of imperialism and the drivers of oppression. Hence, these countries presumably never wanted a day, where the African people get the justice that they deserve. And more so, that this recognition would affect them in so many ways than one.”
Yet, she adds, recognition alone is insufficient.
“The real work has only just begun … several systems must change for a new structure to emerge.”
Beyond legal and economic implications, the resolution intervenes in the politics of memory and healing. For centuries, the transatlantic slave trade was either minimized or distorted through racial ideologies that justified exploitation.
“There is something unique about healing. Without healing it is difficult to genuinely aspire forward, forgive and forget. Africans are suspicious of others who have tormented them and practically aimed to destroy their existence. Now we live together and coexist, but with this burden of hurt. It is vital to ensure complete healing so that we can all move forward as a global family, and this is exactly what this resolution asserts,” Yanney says.
The controversy extended beyond the opposition by the United States and its close allies. On the same day that the Ghanaian head of state addressed the UN to speak on the historic resolution, his government signed a security and defense partnership with the European Union. The move was heavily criticized by progressives as on one hand the nation was leading the fight for historical memory and reparations, and on the other, assisting in cementing neo-colonial presence in West Africa, a frontline of the struggle against colonialism and imperialism.
The U.S. and Canada are using Caribbean and Latin nations to act as fronts, willing dupes, in their plans for the next occupation of Haiti. Travis Ross explains in the second of a three-part report.
The attack by Israeli settlers on the town of Hawwara was no aberration. It was just one example of the violence inherent in an apartheid state.
It is important to understand the truth about the 222 people recently released to the US who were convicted of treason in Nicaragua for savage acts of violence against their people.
The tenth anniversary of the death of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez reminds us of his commitment to serve the people of his country, and to fighting for sovereignty for his nation and all the…
Having used arms control to gain unilateral advantage over Russia, the cost to the U.S. and NATO in getting Moscow back to the negotiating table will be high.
