this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
96 points (85.8% liked)
World News
40033 readers
1075 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The statement wasn't about "condemning slavery", it was "Declaration of the Trafficking of Enslaved Africans and Racialized Chattel Enslavement of Africans as the Gravest Crime Against Humanity".
The EU voted against it because:
"First, the use of superlatives in the context of crimes against humanity is not legally accurate, such as the use of "gravest" in the title and throughout the text, which implies a hierarchy among atrocity crimes, when no legal hierarchy between crimes against humanity exists. It risks undermining the harm suffered by all victims of these crimes and lacks legal clarity crucial for ensuring accountability. We firmly reject introducing ambiguity in this respect."
"Second, the selective inclusion of lengthy, historical, and contentious references to regional jurisprudence and selective and unbalanced interpretation of historical events - such as in Preambular Paragraphs 21 and 23 - is at odds with accepted UN practice, as well as the stated universal and forward looking objective of this initiative. It risks creating divisions when unity is both necessary and achievable. The role of the General Assembly is not to substitute itself to the academic debate amongst historians."
"Third, we are also concerned by certain legal references and assertions that are either inaccurate or inconsistent with international law. This includes suggestions of a retroactive application of international rules which was non-existent at the time and claims for reparations, which is incompatible with established principles of international law. The principle of non-retroactivity, a fundamental cornerstone of the international legal order, must be strictly upheld. References to claims for reparations also lack a sound legal basis. Any framework for reparatory justice must be grounded in existing multilateral instruments. "
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/un-new-york/eu-explanation-vote-%E2%80%93-un-general-assembly-action-a80l48-declaration-trafficking-enslaved-africans_en?s=63
Pretending that not voting "yes" was refusing to condemn slavery is extremely disingenuous.
These are all incredibly weak justifications wrapped in legalese, that's really just a thin posturing as to their position, which is white/western supremacy, and refusing to hold themselves accountable for hundreds of years of ongoing theft. The EU also refuses to vote for the condemnation of nazism using the same type of legalistic justifications.
I don't have time to go through each of their sentences, but someone easily could ala the style of Marx's critique of the gotha programme, because there's hidden meanings and psychology behind almost every sentence that requires a paragraph.
They also forgot to add that they were the main beneficiaries of the Atlantic slave trade. I'm sure that it must be a coincidence.
Classic European rules lawyering to smugly dip out of doing something they never wanted to do anyway. They could have written the resolution themselves, to their exact specifications, and they would still find a convenient technical reason to avoid making any kind of stand against imperialism, past or present.
Slavers will always make excuses for not condemning slavery.
And non-thinkers will accept propaganda headlines and never employ any critical thinking.
Oh noooo the slaver doesn’t like me
All of a sudden, Europe now cares about international law?
Europe is the only place that does care about international law.
It got worse on next try:
Lol
Netanyahu hiding in a Berlin Bunker like 😳 hope the germans dont know I'm here
you are a hypocrite nazi clown
Exaclty thats why we condemn Iran for defending itself, and for being attacked. Also of course the actions of Israel are only problematic, we have to watch the genocide from afar, then decide if it was just. Ah the shamelessness. Meanwhile lets host as many of their war criminals as possible.
Sounds to me like the EU is just saying "all lives matter" in legal jargon. Tripping over pedantics because they don't want to be seen as responsible for their predecessors actions even though they hold plenty of southern hemisphere countries regularly responsible for actions not committed by their current govt.
"Black Lives Matter" is a movement that has traction because right now black people are being killed by cops. "All Lives Matter" is insensitive because it's ignoring the urgent problem that's affecting black people now. The trans-Atlantic slave trade ended centuries ago. There's no urgency to address something that has been over for that long.
You might see what they're doing as being pedantic, but I think you can acknowledge that the enslavement of Africans was a terrible crime against humanity without requiring a competition to see which atrocity gets the #1 spot. There's nothing about what the EU said that comes close to saying they don't want to take responsibility for what their ancestors did (although having said that, it's ridiculous to ask that someone ever take responsibility for something their ancestors did).
You can "whattabout" this all you want, but that doesn't mean that the declaration was a good one. It was a shitty one and shouldn't have been put forward at all.
The consequences of the slave trade still carry over today, and factor into neocolonialism and imperialism committed by the collective west right now. It isn't just "something bad their ancestors did," it's a generational crime with generational consequences that shape much of how the world works to this very day. Reparations are necessary.
If only they actually meant that. Seems they forgot that they use nothing but superlatives when it comes to crimes they now politicially benefit from, like holocaust. Should I provide quotes? But yes Afd makes the same argument for holocaust, go figure.