**FILE** Andrea Levy (R) from Queens, New York, joins other demonstrators for slave reparations on the National Mall August 17, 2002, in Washington, D.C. Hundreds of blacks rallied, saying it is long past time to compensate blacks for the ills of slavery. (Manny Ceneta/Getty Images)
**FILE** Andrea Levy (R) from Queens, New York, joins other demonstrators for slave reparations on the National Mall August 17, 2002, in Washington, D.C. Hundreds of blacks rallied, saying it is long past time to compensate blacks for the ills of slavery. (Manny Ceneta/Getty Images)

In a moment that should have united the world in moral clarity, the United States instead chose denial. On March 25, the United Nations General Assembly passed a landmark resolution declaring the transatlantic slave trade the โ€œgravest crime against humanity.โ€ The vote was decisive, with 123 nations voting in favor.

Yet the United States โ€” alongside Israel and Argentina โ€” opposed the resolution, while the United Kingdom and the European Union chose the cowardly path of abstaining.ย 

This was not merely a diplomatic disagreement. It was a profound moral failure. Slavery was not an abstract historical wrong. It was a system of industrialized human theft, torture, rape, and generational dehumanization that forcibly displaced more than 12 million Africans and built the economic foundations of Western wealth. The scars of that brutality remain visible today in racial wealth gaps, systemic inequality, and enduring discrimination across societies shaped by its legacy.

The resolution, led by Ghana and backed by African and Caribbean nations, sought not to rank suffering but to acknowledge the truth and pursue justice, including reparations. As Ghanaโ€™s leadership emphasized, this was about โ€œmoral recognition,โ€ not retribution.

Legal scholar Justin Hansford, in a Reuters interview, called the measure a historic stepโ€” an overdue affirmation of what descendants of the enslaved have long known.

Yet the Trump administration rejected it, hiding behind legalistic arguments about โ€œhierarchies of atrocities.โ€ That rationale rings hollow. Refusing to name slavery as one of the gravest crimes is not neutrality โ€” it is erasure. It signals an unwillingness to confront the full weight of history, especially when that history implicates power.

Let us be clear: this decision was not merely misguided; it was racist in effect and implication. At a time when the global community is grappling with systemic injustice, the United States chose to diminish one of the most defining atrocities in human history.

History will remember who stood for truth and who turned away. Unfortunately, the United States turned away from it.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *