UN General Assembly Declares Transatlantic Slave Trade the Gravest Crime Against Humanity as United States, Israel and Argentina Vote Against

The United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly adopted a resolution declaring the transatlantic slave trade and the racialised chattel enslavement of Africans as “the gravest crime against humanity,” marking a significant symbolic step in global efforts toward historical acknowledgment and reparatory justice.

The resolution, spearheaded by Ghana on behalf of the African Group and strongly supported by the African Union and Caribbean nations, passed with 123 votes in favour. Only three countries – the United States, Israel, and Argentina – voted against it, while 52 nations, including the United Kingdom and all European Union members, abstained.

The vote took place yesterday, coinciding with the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade. It builds on decades of advocacy by African and Caribbean states, drawing on earlier declarations such as the 1993 Abuja Proclamation and the 2023 Accra Proclamation.

The text unequivocally condemns the trafficking of enslaved Africans and the system of racialised chattel enslavement as one of history’s most profound moral catastrophes. Proponents highlighted its unprecedented scale – an estimated 12.5 million Africans forcibly transported between 1501 and 1866, with roughly 10.7 million surviving the Middle Passage – its racialised character, and its lasting legacies in shaping global inequalities, racial hierarchies, and economic disparities.

Ghana’s Permanent Representative, Ambassador Samuel Yao Kumah, briefing the press on behalf of the African Group, stressed that the resolution does not seek to “rank suffering” or create a hierarchy of historical atrocities. Instead, it aims to formally recognise the unique brutality, duration, and enduring consequences of the transatlantic slave trade as a foundation for dialogue, remembrance, and reparatory justice.

Dissenting Positions and UK ExplanationThe three dissenting votes drew immediate attention. The United States, Israel, and Argentina opposed the text, while the United Kingdom and many Western nations abstained.

In its Explanation of Vote, UK Chargé d’Affaires Ambassador James Kariuki acknowledged the “abhorrent nature” of the transatlantic slave trade and its “profound” horrors and “deep scars” that persist today. He affirmed the UK’s commitment to acknowledging painful shared history in a spirit of solidarity and mutual respect.

However, the UK could not support the resolution due to fundamental concerns. Kariuki stated that creating a hierarchy of historical atrocities risks diminishing the suffering of other communities whose trauma was felt just as strongly. He emphasised the importance of approaching all historical injustices with equal seriousness, empathy, and respect.

The UK also highlighted long-standing principles of international law, including intertemporality and non-retroactivity. It argued that acts must be judged by the law applicable at the time they were committed, and there is no duty under international law to provide reparation for historical acts that were not violations when they occurred.

In the explanation, the UK welcomed the drafters’ insistence that the text was a political declaration rather than a legal document, but regretted that proposed language to make this clearer was not accepted.

The United States and Israel have historically expressed caution toward resolutions they view as potentially politicised or as creating precedents for legal or financial claims. Argentina’s opposition under its current administration reflects a broader shift toward alignment with Western positions on sovereignty and limited international redistributive mechanisms.

The resolution is non-binding but carries considerable moral and diplomatic weight. Supporters see it as a long-overdue acknowledgment that can foster genuine dialogue on historical justice, education, and reparatory measures without imposing new legal obligations. Critics argue that such declarations risk oversimplifying complex history or diverting attention from contemporary issues, including modern forms of slavery and trafficking.

The vote highlights ongoing tensions in multilateral diplomacy: the aspiration for broad consensus versus the realities of divergent national interests, legal traditions, and interpretations of history. It also reflects evolving geopolitical alignments, with Argentina joining the US and Israel in opposition.

As the conscience of international community continues to grapple with the legacies of the transatlantic slave trade – a system that fuelled the rise of Western economies while inflicting immeasurable human suffering – the resolution adds to the global conversation on remembrance, accountability, and reconciliation.

Whether it advances healing or deepens divisions will depend on how member states choose to engage with its message in the months and years ahead.